Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14552

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J
Mohd. Arfat – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 8115 and 8180 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siddarath Pogula
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for MAUD, M. Arun Kumar

Regularization of unauthorized construction under municipal laws is a discretionary power of the Commissioner and not a vested right; the court will not issue injunctions to protect illegal structures that violate sanctioned plans and town planning regulations, as doing so perpetuates illegality.

Headnote:(A) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Sections 455-A and 455-AA - Regularization of unauthorized construction - Deviation from sanctioned plan - Petitioners sought to regularize additional floors constructed beyond approved plan - Court held that provisions for regularization were not applicable as the construction date post-dated the specified cut-off date and the statutory power to regularize is discretionary, not a vested right - Courts must not encourage or perpetuate illegality by regularizing blatant violations of sanctioned plans.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were granted building permits for a stilt plus two floors. They subsequently constructed a stilt plus five floors, including a penthouse, in deviation of the sanctioned plan. They applied for regularization of the unauthorized construction. The respondents threatened to demolish the structures, leading the petitioners to file writs seeking to restrain such interference.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that Sections 455-A and 455-AA did not apply to the current case due to the construction date and the discretionary nature of the power. The authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders on the regularization applications strictly in accordance with the law.

Issues: Whether the unauthorized construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan could be regularized under the GHMC Act, 1955, and whether the petitioners were entitled to protection against demolition.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularization of unauthorized building construction is a discretionary power conferred upon the Commissioner, not a right of the applicant. Courts should avoid interfering where construction is clearly unauthorized to prevent perpetuating illegalities, especially when the construction violates town planning and municipal regulations.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with a direction to authorities to decide on the regularization applications according to law.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition seeking to prevent demolition of unauthorized building structures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. applicability of ghmc act sections 455-a and 455-aa to unauthorized building deviations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. judicial precedents emphasizing non-regularization of illegal and unauthorized constructions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No.8115 of 2026 is filed seeking the following prayer:

“…to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus

(a) to declare the action of the Respondents in interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over part of the house bearing Municipal No.9-4-77/3/24 admeasuring 166.66 square yards or 139.35 square meters situated at Baqtawarguda, Tolichowki, Hyderabad with the intention to dispossess and demolish the structures therein as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India.

(b) To direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over part of the house bearing Municipal No.9-4-77/3/24, admeasuring 166.66 square yards or 139.35 square meters situated at Baqtawarguda Tolichowki Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders…”

W.P.No.8180 of 2026 is filed seeking the following prayer:

“…to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus

(c) to declare the action of the Respondents in interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over part of the house bearing Municipal No.9-4-77/3/24 admeasuring 166.66 square yards or 139.35 square meters situated at Baqtawarguda, Tolichowki, Hyderabad with the intention to dispossess and demolish the structures therein as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India.

(d) To direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over part of the house bearing Municipal No.9-4-77/3/24, admeasuring 166.66 square yards or 139.35 square meters situated at Baqtawarguda Tolichowki Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Sri Siddarath Pogula, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for MAUD appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and with their consent, these writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since the issue involved in both the writ petition is one and same, they are being heard together and taken up for disposal vide this common order.

4. The petitioners are represented by their Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) holder, M/s. United Builders, represented by its partner.

5. The brief facts of the case as stated in these writ petitions are that, the petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of the house bearing Municipal No.9-4-77/3/24, admeasuring 166.66 square yards or 139.35 square meters each situated at Baqtawarguda, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, having acquired the same by way of a registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.2451/1995 and 2304/1995, both dated 26.04.1995, respectively registered before the Sub-Registrar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. The petitioners intended to construct a residential building and accordingly submitted a building permit application dated 31.08.2024, to the respondents for construction of a stilt for parking plus + 2 floors. Subsequently, they entered into a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney on 14.10.2024 vide Doc.No.6612 of 2024 with M/s.United Builders for development of the subject property into residential houses. Subsequently, construction was carried out up to Stilt + 5 Floors including a pent house, thereby deviating from the sanctioned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14552

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADN.V. Shravan Kumar, JMohd. Arfat – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentW.P. Nos. 8115 and 8180 of 2026

Regularization of unauthorized construction under municipal laws is a discretionary power of the Commissioner and not a vested right; the court will not issue injunctions to protect illegal structures that violate sanctioned plans and town planning regulations, as doing so perpetuates illegality.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J
Mohd. Arfat – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 8115 and 8180 of 2026