IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Date: 24.02.2026 Between:

G Lalitha Bai, W/o.G. Bansilal, aged 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 3-131, Yapral, Ranga Reddy District.

…. Petitioner and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund road, Hyderabad and 3 others.

…. Respondents

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“...to issue a Writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing the show cause Notice No.G-10165/ACP/C28/TPS/GHMC/2018, Dt.17-5-2018 under section 452 of GHMC Act, stating “Unauthorized construction of compound wall and shops in P.No.3-131 at Yapral, Malkajgiri” which was served on the petitioner on 18-5-2018 which is illegal, arbitrary, violating the provisions of HMC Act, 1955 as well as contrary to the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural Justice and consequentially direct the 2^nd respondent not to demolish the compound wall with shops at H.No.5-3-113/4, Yapral, Malkjgiri and pass...”

2. Heard Ms.G.Uma Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.4. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing No. 5-3-113/4 situated at Yapral Village, having acquired the same through a registered gift settlement deed dated 22.11.2010 from her husband, who had originally purchased the property in 1984 and constructed structures thereon with the permission of Yapral Gram Panchayath. Thus, the petitioner and her husband have been in continuous possession and regularly paying municipal taxes, and the petitioner’s name has also been duly mutated in the municipal records.

4. It is further contended that a neighboring person, Seemala Ashok, unlawfully demolished a portion of the petitioner’s boundary wall in July, 2013 and attempted to encroach upon the land, leading to initiation of criminal proceedings against him. Despite reconstructing the demolished portion, the petitioner continued to face interference, while the authorities failed to take effective action against the encroacher and instead began issuing notices alleging unauthorized construction.

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not made any unauthorized construction but merely reconstructed the demolished boundary wall and that the petitioner has repeatedly submitted all relevant documents and explanations to the authorities. Further, the petitioner’s layout was duly regularized in 2017 and building permission was also granted by the competent authority.

6. It is finally contended that the impugned show cause notice dated 17.05.2018 is issued without application of mind and even referring to incorrect property details and non-existent constructions, as such it is arbitrary, vague, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act and principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and the respondents are to be restrained from demolishing the petitioner’s compound wall and structures.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents while denying the writ averments except those specifically admitted, contended that the petitioner carried out unauthorized construction, and despite being advised by the authorities to stop the same and obtain necessary permission, she failed to comply and continued the illegal activity, without even adhering to the notices issued, and her application was rightly rejected as there is no provision for regularization of such unauthorized construction.

8. The learned