Municipal authorities are legally mandated to act against unauthorized constructions following due process and statutory timelines, and courts should not regularize such illegalities to preserve planned urban development.

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the in action of the respondent No.3 in not stopping illegal construction made by respondent No.4 at house bearing No.46-64, Wanaparthy Town and district, (hereinafter referred as ‘subject property/plot’), without obtaining any construction permission and without leaving any set back on the four corners of the subject plot, even after R-3 issued notice dated 07.04.2026. The petitioner further prays to direct the respondent No.3 to stop the illegal construction and take further action against the respondent No.4 in continuation to the proceedings initiated by the Municipality vide notice dated 07.04.2026.

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.46-65, KDR Nagar, Wanaparthy town and district, which is adjacent to the subject property.

3. It is submitted that there is a common passage of 3 feet in between the house of the petitioner and the respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 demolished her house and started construction of a new house on subject property without obtaining any permission and without leaving any setback towards the house of the petitioner. In this regard, petitioner made a complaint to the respondents No.2 and 3 on 28.03.2026, 30.03.2026 and 17.04.2026 pursuant to which, respondent No.3 issued notice dated 07.04.2026 directing the respondent No.4 to submit all her documents and also construction permission. Thereafter, no further action was initiated by the official respondents and the respondent No.4 is proceeding with further construction unauthorisedly. Questioning the in-action of respondent authorities, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that based on the complaint of the petitioner, notice dated 07.04.2026 has already been issued to the respondent No.4 and further course of action will be initiated in accordance with law, and prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the material made available on the record.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner brought to the notice of the official respondents, by way of several representations about the illegal/unauthorized construction of the respondent No.4 pursuant to which notice dated 07.04.2026 has been issued by the official respondents and thereafter no further action has been initiated against the illegal/unauthorised construction over the subject property.

7. Since this Court, time and again, directed the Municipal Authorities to initiate action against the illegal constructions by following due process of law, it is noticed that the authorities are failing to initiate action against the illegal constructions. However, in some of the cases, authorities are issuing statutory notices and thereafter not proceeding further to initiate further course of action unless writ petitions are filed for not considering complaints/ representations made to civic authorities.

8. It is not out of place to mention Section 7(6) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-BPASS) Act, 2020 (for short ‘the TS-BPASS Act’) which also encourages c