SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15868

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V.Shravan Kumar, J
Bonari Srinivas Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.11592 of 2026



Municipal and planning authorities are mandatorily required to act against unauthorized constructions in accordance with statutory building codes. Courts will not regularize such illegal structures and shall direct authorities to strictly execute demolition or compliance orders to uphold planned development principles.

Headnote:(A) Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System Act, 2020 - Section 7(6) - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Sections 428, 433, 451, 452, 456, 461-A, 636 - Unauthorized construction - Remedy against illegal construction - Compliance with statutory notice requirements - Court observed that the authorities are duty-bound to inspect and take action against deviations. (Paras 5, 6, 7)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of relief - Constitutional courts should refrain from regularizing unauthorized constructions that violate master plans and zoning laws, as such actions encourage further violations and burden public infrastructure. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that respondents constructed a commercial building in violation of residential permissions, encroaching on roads and ignoring setbacks. Despite the petitioner lodging objections, no immediate action was taken by the authorities. The respondent municipality eventually issued a show cause notice and subsequently a speaking order directing the demolition of the unauthorized structure within 15 days.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the municipal authorities have already acted upon the petitioner's representation by issuing a show cause notice and a speaking order. It directed the authorities to proceed with the specified demolition or corrective measures strictly according to the law within four weeks of the expiry of the deadline mentioned in the speaking order.

Issues: Whether the court should intervene in cases of alleged unauthorized construction when the municipal authorities have already initiated statutory proceedings for removal or demolition.

Ratio Decidendi: When statutory authorities are empowered under municipal laws to inspect premises and initiate action against unauthorized construction, the court will direct the authorities to fulfill their duties in strict accordance with the law rather than interfering directly in the merits of the construction itself, provided due process is followed.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. complaint regarding illegal construction and violation of building permits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. current actions taken by municipal authorities in response to complaints. (Para 4)
3. statutory provisions governing building inspection and unauthorized structure demolition. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. judicial stance against regularization of illegal urban construction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court order mandating completion of administrative action against illegal construction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent No.3.

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

“…to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not initiating any action against the building of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, who violated all the building Residential individual permission vide permit No.0012/ALYB/IABP/2025 dated 22.08.2025 for plot No.39 and part of 38 and No.0013/ALYB/IABP/2025 dated 22.08.2025 for plot No.38 and No.0014/ALYB/IABP/2025 dated 22.08.2025 for plot No.40 and constructed single commercial building by way of shops without following any setbacks by encroaching road and constructing excess to the land possessed by them, though the petitioner filed written objections before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 01.04.2026 and the same was acknowledged, no action has been initiated for recalling the building permission, which is arbitrary, bad and illegal and contrary to under Section 178(2)(4)(5)(6)(7) of T.S. Municipalities Act (Act No.11 of 2019)…”

3. Brief facts as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.8.32 guntas in Survey Nos.640/3, 641/3, 642/3, 639/B/2 and 619/B/2 respectively. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 6 purchased unauthorized layout plots i.e., Plot Nos.38, 39 and 40 situated at Lalgadi, Malakpet, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri and without obtaining any building permission started construction on the subject property. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20285 of 2025 and this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 directed to stop the ongoing illegal construction on the subject property within a period of 24 hours or else the structures will be demolished. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 to 6 approached respondent No.3 and applied for building permission and respondent Nos.4 to 6 were accorded building permission vide building permit Nos. No.0013/ALYB/IABP/2025, No.0012/ALYB/IABP/2025 and No.0014/ALYB/IABP/2025 dated 22.08.2025. The said permissions were granted for construction of individual residential building consisting of stilt for parking + 2 upper floors. However, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are constructing commercial shops in the subject property. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.04.2026 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recall/cancel the permissions dated 22.08.2025. However, the same are still pending for consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that after receiving the petitioner’s representation dated 01.04.2026, respondent No.3 immediately stopped the construction on the subject property and issued a show cause notice dated 02.04.2026 to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and observing that the permission was taken for constructing a single structure by taking three (3) separate building permissions from respondent No.3. However, no reply was received from respondent Nos.4 to 6, respondent No.3 issued a speaking order on 15.04.2026 directing respondent Nos.4 to 6 to remove/demolish the structure within 15 days. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the 15 days period would end by 30.04.2026, the respondent authorities will take approp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top