Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17918
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J
Mir. Mazharuddin Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.15421 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Writ Law - Mandamus
Act Referred
Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-BPASS) Act, 2020: S.7(6)
Headnote
(B) Town Planning - Unauthorized constructions - Regularization - Courts have discouraged regularization of deviations and emphasized strict compliance with building laws - No relief to violators of town planning schemes.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a resident of Erragadda, Hyderabad, filed a writ petition seeking direction to respondent authorities to consider his representation dated 20.02.2026 and take action against illegal and unauthorized construction by respondent No.5 in premises H.No.8-3-165/1/4, Erragadda. Respondent No.5 allegedly obtained permission for an individual residential building of 167.28 sq.m but was constructing on 400 sq.m with deviations and without setbacks, causing inconvenience. Despite representation, no action was taken.
Findings of Court:
The court found that respondent authorities are vested with statutory powers to inspect and take action. It directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the complaint, afford hearing, verify records, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks. If allegations are true, they shall take necessary action including stoppage, sealing, and demolition of illegal structure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the inaction of respondent authorities in considering the complaint against unauthorized construction was illegal and arbitrary, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities have statutory duties and powers to address unauthorized constructions, and they must consider complaints and act in accordance with law. Unauthorized constructions should not be regularized and must be dealt with strictly.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks direction to consider complaint against unauthorized construction; court hears parties and disposes at admission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner confines relief to consideration of complaint; respondent authorities agree to consider in accordance with law. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. statutory provisions under ts-bpass act and ghmc act empower authorities to handle unauthorized constructions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. courts have consistently held unauthorized constructions should not be regularized and violators denied relief. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court directs authorities to consider complaint and take action; writ disposed of. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:-
“to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 pursuant to the representation dated 20.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner complaining against the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by Respondent No.5 in premises bearing H.No.8-3-165/1/4, Erragadda, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the GHMC Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently direct Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take appropriate action against the illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by Respondent No.5, including removal of the deviations and violations in accordance with law, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...”
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Erragadda, Hyderabad and also claims to be a regular commuter within the locality of Erragadda, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction in premises bearing H.No.8-3-165/1/4, Erragadda, Hyderabad, which is causing inconvenience and hardship to the residents, pedestrians and commuters in the said locality. It is further stated that respondent No.5 obtained building permission vide File No.006141/GHMC/02497/IABP/C19/2025 and Permit No.1713/GHMC/IAiC19/2025 dated 12.07.2025 for construction of an individual residential building to an extent of about 167.28 square meters. However, according to the petitioner, respondent No.5 is carrying out construction activity on a much larger extent of nearly 400 square meters consisting of stilt plus three upper floors, in deviation of the sanctioned plan and without adhering to the mandatory setback requirements prescribed under the GHMC laws and Rules. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is intentionally proceeding with the construction activity by leaving lesser setback spaces and undertaking unauthorized commercial construction at the ground floor, thereby causing traffic congestion, nuisance and inconvenience to the public at large within the locality of Erragadda, Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, though complaints were made before respondent Nos.2 to 4 regarding the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction activity and violations committed by respondent No.5, no action has been initiated by the respondent authorities till date. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted representation dated 20.02.2026 before respondent Nos.2 to 4 requesting them to take appropriate action against the illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by respondent No.5. However, according to the petitioner, despite receipt of the said representation, the respondent authorities failed to consider the same and no action has been taken against respondent No.5 till date. It is the specific
