Municipal authorities have a statutory duty to investigate and initiate appropriate action against unauthorized constructions upon receiving complaints, and they must adhere to due process by providing all concerned parties a fair opportunity of hearing before passing orders.

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality, appearing for respondent No.3. With their consent, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition has being filed seeking the following prayer:-

“to issue Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2 to 3 herein in not considering the representation/complaint dated 21-01-2026 and 20/03/2026 submitted by the petitioner and not discharging their statutory duties for taking action against the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the Respondent No. 4 in the petitioner property at land bearing Survey No.309/A1, situated at Patighanapur Village as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to 3 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized constructions undertaken by the Respondent No.4th in the petitioners land and pass.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner’s complaints dated 21.01.2026 and 20.03.2026 regarding illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by Respondent No. 4 on land bearing Survey No. 309/A1 situated at Patighanapur Village. Such inaction is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Respondent No. 4 is undertaking construction without obtaining any permission or sanctioned plan from the competent authorities, in clear violation of applicable building rules and regulations, rendering the construction wholly unauthorized and unlawful. Despite the complaint dated 21.01.2026, no action was taken by the authorities. The petitioner filed O.S. No.162 of 2026 before the learned I Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional JMFC, Sangareddy and the trial Court granted an ad-interim injunction on 17.03.2026 restraining Respondent No.4 from entering into the premises. However, the respondent continued the construction in violation of the said order. It is further submitted that the continued inaction of the authorities has enabled Respondent No. 4 to proceed with the illegal construction at a rapid pace is causing prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner seeks directions to the official respondents to take action under the GHMC Act, 1955, including stopping further construction and demolishing the unauthorized structure.

5. The learned standing counsels appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 would submit that there appears to be civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4. However, the respondents No.2 and 3 would not come into this aspect but by the extent of complaint made by the petitioner in so far as the illegal construction made in the subject property, the respondent authorities would consider the same and take action in accordance with law.

6. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to Section 7(6) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-BPASS) Act, 2020 (for short ‘the TS-BPASS Act’), the