M. Lalitha & Ors. v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT ...RESPONDENTS OF MANDAIMUS declaring the inaction of respondents on the complaints made by the petitioners dated 04.03.2026, 11 .08.2025, 19.05.2025,23.05.2025, and 02.03.2025 and is illegal, arbitrary, violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and as well as dereliction of duties conferred by the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of lndia and as well as Telangana Municipalities Act and rules made there under and consequently direct the respondents to remove illegal encroachment on the public path and illegal construction vide House bearing No. 7-1-229, Bendimet, Maruthi Veedhi, Secunderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC Braying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to remove illegal encroachment on the public path and illegal construction vide House bearing No. 7-1-229, Bendimet, Maruthi Veedhi, Secunderabad and make the public path set free forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. AMBEDKAR DUNNA Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 TO 4: SRI c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.5: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER SC FOR GHMC IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8248 of 2o26 DATE OF ORDER: L8.O3.2O26 Between: M.Lalitha, D/o. Late Narsimha & Auother AND ...Petitioners The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration &Urban Development Departments Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 4 others ...Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is Iiled questioning the inaction of respondents on the complaints made by the petitioners on 04.O3.2026,

11.O8.2025, 19.O5.2025, 23.O5.2025 and 02.O3.2025. A consequential prayer is sought to direct the respondents to remove illegal encroachment on the public path and illegal construction uide house bearing No.7-l-229, Bendimet, Maruthi Veedhi, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred as'subject property").

#2. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner and respondent No.5 -afe residents of the subject properB . It is submitted ./ 2 that thc respondenL No.5 is illegally constructing G+4 floors building by occupying thc public path u,ithout permission of the Municipal Authorities. It is ftrrthcr submitted that due to said constructions, the pctitioner being a old irccrl personr is suffering to move on the same anci is causing lot rri inr.o rr r,,c nience to the pctitior-rers and passersby. Aggrieved bv thc :tc-:tion of respondent No.5, the petitioner made aforcsaid represeniations. tsuL till date, no actiotr has been initiated on the said reprlscnl, rlr,)t,s. As such, the prcsent writ petition is Illed.

#3. Lcarned coL:nscl lbr the petitioners submits that since petiLioner's rcpres('nt:rtiorts 04.O3.2026, I 1.O8.2025, 19.05.202S, '23.05.2O2r anci O:.tril.2O25 are stiii pending for consideration, the respondent authoriiics rna_r' bc directed to consider the same and take erction in a timr: bor- lri pcriorl.

#4. On thc othrr' ]ran<1, Mr. G.Madhusudh:rn Reddy, learnecl Standing Cour rscl iirr (l I IMC appearing for rcspondcnt Nos.2 to 4 submiLs that the pctilioner's representations dated 04.O3.2026,

11.O8.2O25. r9 0.'.-20,15, 23.05.2O25 and O,2.O3.2025 rvill bc considered. rf ntrr a I r.carli' c()nsidcrcd, and appropriate action u,ould be initi.lted, in acc, rr irruli ,.'. ith lau,, and pra.ys this Court to pass appropriate orders.

#5. Heard learnerl cotrnscl for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appcaring [lrr r-cs; tonclent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material made available on t }ro rci:rrrrl. 3

#6. 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 iliegal constructions. However, in some of the cases, authorities are issuing statutory notices and thereafler not proceeding further to initiate further course of action unless writ petitions are hled for not considering complaints/ representations made to civic authorities.

#7. It is not out of place to mention Section 7(6) of the Telangana Statc Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS- bPASS) Act, 2O2O (for short 'the TS-BPASS Act) which also encourages citizens to put on notice to the Civic Authorities regarding unauthorized constructions. Section 7(6\ of the TS-BASS Act is extracted for reference. "7. Approval of Building Permissions- (6) Citizens shall be encouraged to bring to the notice of Municipality and District Collector cases where unauthorized construction or construction in violation of or in excess of permissions, in the manner prescribed. The identity of such informers shali be kept confidential. A11 such cases sha-ll be examined within a week from such information and appropriate action initiated. The information shali be incentivized in all such cases where the I 4 =- inforrnalion, furnished by him is found to be correct."

#8. For be tte r appreciation, this Court deems iL appropriate to refer somc oI the relevant Scctions ol Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporatron Act, 1955 (hereinafler relerred to as'the GHMC Act'). Section 428 of the GHMC Act 1955

#428. Notice to be given to commissioner of (t) Every intentiofl to erect a buildirlg: person rvho inlends to erect a building shall give to tlre comrnissioner notice of his said intention in a form, obtarned lor this purpose under Section 4i)5, spccifying the position of the building intended to be erected, the description of buikling, the purpose for which it is intcndcd, its dimcnsions and the name of the person whom he intends to employ to supen, ise its erection. Section 433 of GIIMC Act 1955

#433. Notice to be given Commissioner of additions intention to make "Ei,ery person who shall etc. intend (a) to make any addition to a building; or (b) to make an., alteration or repairs to a building; not being a frame-building, involving the removal or re-erection of any external or party-v,,a11 thereof or of eLny wall which \ \ 5 supports the roof thereof, to an extent exceed.ing one-half of such wall above the plinth level, such half to be measured in superhcial feet; or (c) to make any alteration or repairs to a frame building, involving the removal or re-erection of more thal one-half of t1-re posts in any such wa-ll thereof as aforesaid or in'r,olving tl-e removal or re-erection of any such wall thereof as aJoresaid to arr extent exceeding one-half of such wa1l above the plinth level, such half to be measured in superficial feet; or (d) to make any a.lteration in a building involving:- (i) the sub division of aly room in such building so as to convert the same into two or more separate rooms. (ii) the conversion of any passage or space rn such building into a room or rooms; or (e) to remove or reconstruct any portion of a building abutting on a street which stands within the regular line of such street; sha1l give to the Commissioner in a form obtained for the purpose under section 435 notice of his intention, specifying the portion of the building in which such work is to be executed, the nature and extent of the intended work, the particular part or parts, if any, of such work which is or are intended to be used for human habitation and the name of the person whom he intends to employ to supervise lts execution." 6 Section 451 of GHMC Act 1955 "451. Inspection of buildings in course of erection, alteration etc.:- The Commissioner may at any time during the erection or re-ercction of a building or the execut.ion of any such w-ork as is described rn Section 433 make arr inspection lheretrf without giring previous notice ol I'ris intention so to do." Section 452 of GHMC Act 195s

#452. Demolition or alteration of the building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed and appdal thereon:- (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the construction or re-construction of any building or execution of any u,ork as dcscribcd in Scction 433 is commenced or carried out contrarJ/ to the provisions of the Act or building rules or bye- laws made thercunder, he shall make a provisional order requiring the person ivho is constrlrcting or re-constructing such building or executing such work or has constructed or re-constructed sucl-r building or executed such work to demolish such unauthorized construction or re-constntction or work wiLhi.n a period spccified to bring such construction or re-constr-uction of the building or work in conlormity $'ith the provisions of the Act or building r-u1es or B),e-1alvs made thereunder and may a-lso direct that until the said order is complied with, the concerned person shall refrain from proceeding with such construction or reconstruction of the building or work. ---=.-.7:a---y )/ 7 Section 456 of GHMC Act 1955 "Dang erous Structures Removal of structures, trees etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall:- (1) If it shall at any time appear to the Commissioner that any structure (including under this expression any building, wa1l, parapet, pavement, floor, steps, railings, door or window frames or shutters or roof, or other structure ald anything affixed to or projection from or resting on, a-ny bui-lding, walI, parapet or other structure) is in ruinous condition or likely to fall, or is in any way dangerous to any person occupylng, resorting to or passing by, such structure or any other structure or place in the neighborhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to do one or more of tl- e following things, namely:- (i) to pull down, (ii) to secure, (iii) to remove, or (iv) to repair such shucture or thing, and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom. (2) The Commissioner may a1so, if he thinks fltt, require the said owner or occupier by the sard notice, either forthwith or before proceedings to pull down, secure, remove or repair the structure or things, to set up a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for thc protection of passers-by and other persons, with a convenient platform and hand-rail, if there be room enough for the same the Commissioner shali think the sarne desirable, 8 ( to serve as footway for passengers outside of such hoard or fence. (3) If it appears to the Commissioner that ttre danger irom a structure which is ruinous or about to fa-ll is imminent, he may, before giving notice as aforesard or before the period of notice expires, fence off, take down, secure or repair the said structur-e or take such steps or cause u,ork to be executed as may be required to arrest the danger- (a) Any expenscs incurred by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) shall be paid by the owner or occupier o[ the slruclure. (5) (a) Where thc Commissioner is oI opinion rvhether on rcceipt of al application or otherwise that the only or the most convenient means by which thc owner or occupier of structure such as is referred to in sub-section (1) can putl down, secure, remove or repair such structure, is by entering any of the adjoining premises belonging to somc other pcrson the Commissioner after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of stating anv objection may, if no such objection is raised or if any objection which is raised appears to him invalid or insufhcient, by an order in wrrting, authorize the said owner or occupier to enter such adjoining premises. (b) Every such order bearing the signature of tJle Commissioner shall be a suflicient authority to the person in rvhose favour it is made, or to any agent or person employed by him for this purpose, after giving to the owner of the premises reasonable written notice of his intention so to do, to enter upon the said premises with assistants 9 and workmen, at any time between sunrise and sun set, and to execute the necessarv work. (c) In executing, any work under this section as Iittle damage as possible shall be done to the adjoining owner's property, and the owner or occupier of premises for the benefit of which tlle work is done, shall - (i) cause the work to be cxecuted with the least practicable delay; (ii) pay compensation to any person who sustains damage by the execution of the said work. Sectlon 461-A of GHMC Act 1955 "46L-A. Powers to seal unauthorized construction/development of premises:_ (1) It shall be law{ul for thc Commissioner, at arty time, before or after making an order for the removal or discontinualce of any unauthorized development or construction under section 461, to make an order directing the sealing of such development or property or taking the assistance of policc, for the purpose of ca-rrying out the provisions o[ the Act.,, Section 636 of GHMC Act 195s "636. Work or thing done without written permission of the Commissioner to be deemed unauthorized:- (1) If any work or thing requiring the written permission of the Commissioner under any provision of this Act, or aly ru1e, regulation or bye-law is done by :rny person without obtalning such written permission or, if such written permission is subsequently suspended or revoked for aly 10 r rcason by the Commissioner, such work or thing shall be deemcd to be unauthonsed ald subjcct to any other provision of this Act the Commissioncr maJ. at arty time, by w tten notice, require that the same shall be removcd. pltllcd dortn or undone as the case may be, bv llrc p( rson so carn'ing out or doing if the person carrying out such work or doing such thing is not the o\r,'ner at the Lime of such notice then the owrrer at the time of giving such I olicc shall be liablc foi carrying out lhe rlqursrt ions oI thc eommissioner. {2) If within the penod specified in such written notice thc requisitions contarned therein arc not calricd out by the person or owner, as tl'rc case may be, thc Commissioner may remove or alter such work or undo such thing and thc cxpenscs thereof shall be paid by such person or ovJncr as the casc may be." 9- On perusal o[ the above provisions, it is clcar that the respondent ar-rthorities are vested with statutory powers to inspect any property and after putting on notice and after giving tair opportunity o[ ]re:rring to thc concerned parties, may take appropriate action :rgair-rst thc trnauthorized constructions on such properties, in accorrlance u,r th law.

#10. Thc Hon'blc Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Ctub and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors1, held that violators of Lhe Town ' ((2ooe) rs scc 7os) : j I I { i r 11 Planning Scheme cannot be granted any relief. The relevant observations are as under: "52- Before concluding, we consider it necessary to enter a caueat. In all deueloped counties, greot emphasis has been laid on the pLanned deuelopment of cittes and urbqn areas. The object of planned deueLopment ho,s been achieued bg igorous enforcement of master p/an-s prepared afier coreful studg of complex is-sues, scientfc research and ratiotttrlisation of laus. The people of thDse counties haue greatLg contnbuted to th.e concept of planned deuelopment oJ cihes bg stictly adheing to the planning lanas, the nLdster plan etc. Theg respect the laws enacted bg the legtsLature for reguLating planned deuelopment of tle cities and seldom th.ere is a complaint of uioLation of master plan etc. in the constructiotl of buitdings, reside ntial, institutionol or commercial. In contrast, scenaio in the deueloping counties Iike ours is substantiollA different. Tltouglt" the competent Leglslatures haue, from time to time, enacted laus for ensuing planned deueLopment of th.e cittes and urbsn areas, enforcement thereof has been extremelg poor and the people haue uiolated th.e master plans, zonirtq plans and building regutations and bAe laus utth impunitA. In Last four decades, atmost all ctttes, big or small, haue seen unplanned growth. In tlrc 21st century, illegat and unauthorized the menace of consttuctions and encroachments ho.s acquired monstrous proportion-s and eueryone has been paging heaug pice for the same. Economicallg afJTuent people and those hautng support of the political and exe<:utiue qpparatus of the State hrTue constructed buildings, commercia| complexes, multiptexes, mo'lls etc. in blatant violation of the i,? the influence of rutnictpaL and toun planning laLas, master plans, zonal deuelopment plans and euen the sanctoned lqns. In most of the cases o f itteoal or buildtng p unauthgqizgd constructions, the officers of the nutntc:ioal and other requlatoru bodies tum blind e-ue either due to hiqher flulcttonories of the State or other ertraneous reosolq Tlose who constnlct buildings in uio[ation of th<t reLeuant stqt.utory prouisi.ons, master ploft etc. ond those utho directLg or indirectlA abet such uiolations ore totollg unmind, ful of the graue consequences of their actiorr^s and/ or omissions on the present q.s tuell as future gener^tions of the country which tuill be forced to liue in unplanned cities and urban areas. The peopte belongtng to lhls clas-s do not reqLi-ze that the constructiot-Ls made in utolatton of the releuant ldus, master plotr or zortal deueLopment plan or sanctioned building p\att or tlrc building is used fu a purpose other lhon the one specified in the releuant statute or the tnaster plan etc., such constructions put unbeqrq.ble burd.en ort the Dublic otcilitie amenities like wqter electrici sewerd.qe etc. q.Dqlt m creqtino c hqos on the roq.ds. The pollution caused due to tralfc cortgestiort affects tLe health of the road users. Tlrc pedestrtans and people belonging to tuectker seclrorrs o/ the societA, uho cannot a,fford the luxury oJ air conditioned cc.rs, are the Loorst uictirns of pollution. Theg sulJer from skin diseases of diflzrent tqpes, asthma, allergies and euen more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can onlg be a trlatter of Lrnagination how much th_e gouernment llo.s to spend on the treatment of such persons ctnd also for controlling poltution and aduerse impact on the enuironmerlt due to traffi.c congestion on the roads qnd chqotic conditions created due to i egal and unauthori-zed constructions. This Court hq.s. rom t me to ti lz@nce o tq.ken ,' | '$-.affi-. .,'; . , '-r '-I8 lra , (rt- -l' -j *trHg*54{tglryplc-' \" :1?"* L3 constructed ia violation of buildLrtos muntclp al dnd other lanos and emphqsized that no co 'mororraise should be tnade uith the toutn lanninq scheme qnd no relief should be oen to the uio tor o u)n scheme etc. on the oround that he hqs spent substan.tiol d.mount on constt-uctiorl of the buildi s etc. - K. R(I.m,d(Is She,l.ou a. Chief Officers. Town Municip(, I Council. Udipi 1974 t2) SCC 506. Dr. G' N. Khdiuria a. Delhi Deue looment Authoritu 7995 tst scc 762. M.I. v. Rqdheu Shu4m Builders P1rt. Ltd hu 7999 6 scc 464 Friends Colo a. Stdte Develooment Cornmittee Orissd 2OO4 t8t scc 733 M.C- Mehtq u. Urlio'l t3t scc 399 qnd S.lV. Chqndrqsekhqr o. Stdte of Karnatctka 2O06 3 scc oa. India 2006

#53. Unfortunatetg, desPite repeated judgments bg ttrc this Court and High Courts, the builders and otter affluent peopLe engaged in the consttuctton actiuities, uho haue, ouer the gears shown scant respect for regulatory mechanistn enuisqged in the municipal and other similar laus, as also the mo.ster plans, zona[ deueloprruent pLans, sanctioned plons etc., haue receiued encouragement ond suppotl from the Stote apparotus. As ctnd when tlu? coutts haue passed orders or the officers of local and other bodtes haue tqken action for ensuing igorous ampliance of laras relating to planned deuelopment of tlrc cities qnd urban oreas and issued dtrections Jor d.emolition of iltegal/ unauthorized constructions, those tn pouer hrTue come fonuard to protect the wrong doers either bA issuing qdministratiue orders or enqctiftg laws for iltegal and unauthorized rerutorizLttion of constnlctions in the ftame of compo'ssion arld 74 hardship. Such actions hque done ineparable ha."n to the concept of planned deuetopment of the cities ctttd urban areas lt is ,r.ioh time thqt the executi ue q.nd Doliticq.l apDArd t1a.s af the Stdte tdke serio,]s oleut of the fitenace of ill ectdl and. o.ffluent class of su DOrt to the lobbies builders Lnd others, else eaen the ,'urdl 4re(Ls tDltness similGr cho.otic conditio ns. " (EmP hcrsis supp lied) the cou ntru will sooTt ortzed const tions o.nd

#22. Further, the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd' and Ors' Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Ors (2013) 5 SCC 357, helcl that Constitutional Courts ought not to cxercise their equitable jurisdiction to regularize illegal and The relevant observations arc unauthorized constructlons as under: reiterate "45. In rieut of th"' aboue'discttssion' ute hotd that t.l'Le P?titioners in the transkfted case haue failed to tneke out a case for directing tle Respondents to regulctizr- th" cons!nlclion made in uiolalion of tlrc setctioned ptan. Rather, tfe raho of the aboue nate(1 ju(lgnLents arL(l, in patlianlor, Rogal Paradise Hotel lP) Ltd. u- State oJ Haryano and Ors (supra) is cleorlg attracted in th.e present case' We would' that no quthoritg o.d.ministeing ./r,Lurticipql la'us and other similar la u.ts co;n encourqge aiolation oJ the sqnctioned plan. The Courts qre also expected to refraifl from exercising equitable jurisd.iction Jor regularizqtion of itlegal and una uthorized constructiofts else it would encourdge uiolltors of the planning lanos and destrog the aery idea dnd coflcePt of planned' development of urban as uell 4s rural areqs"' (e'lnphasis suPPlied)" 15

#11. I[ is also relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022 (2024 INSC 8661 (Bulldozer's Case|, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave certain directions and guidelines to the Government for manner of proceeding in demolition of the unauthorized construction

#12. Since the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 mandates issuance of notice to the person concerned and the GHMC authorities are empowered to examine and decide the issue with respect to unauthorized constructions, by issuing notice to the concerned parties, the respondent authorities are directed to issue notice to the concerned parties. As such, in the present case, issuance of notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

#13. Having considered the above facts and circumstance, recording the submission made by the learned counsel appcaring on either side, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after considering judicial precedents referred to hereinabove, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representations dated 04.03.2026, 11.08.2025, 19.O5.2O25, 23.O5.2O25 and O2.O3.2O25 and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner and respondent No.5 and after verifying the sanctioned plan and other relevanL documents, shali pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance lr, ith law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a .r period oI lour (O4) uccks, irom rhe date of receipt of a copy of this order and conrmunicate the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that il the allegatior-rs made by the petitioner are found to be true, the respondent authorities shall take appropriate action strictlv in accordance r,r.it h l;rrr'.

#14. IL is :rlso clarillecl that in the event of respondent No.5 is othe^\.ise aggrievcd mav avail remedy of filing application for the modification ol thrs ,,p61p1. in atccordance wrth law.

#15. With rhc above directions, this writ petition There shall be no r;rder as to costs. 1S disposed of. As :r sequel therr:io, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall st:rnd closed ,TRUE COPY// Sd/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (2- SECTION OFFICER To, 2 4 E 6 The Principar Secretarv. Ivlunicipar Administration and urban Deveropment Department, State of Tetangana, S""r"trriri e;iroiigs, FtyoerauaO The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle No. 30, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. The city Planning officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation circre No. 30, Secunderabad. Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle No. 30, Secunderabad. Hydera6ad. One CC to SRT AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

#7. One CC to SRt G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,SC FOR GHMC tOpUCl B. Two CD Cooies DAN/P|MK ft, # :} 'ir l'i. HIGH COURT DATED: 1810312026 ORDER WP.No.8248 of 2026 .D IL ,+, oFlE .s' s\ s N * L.i ,&r.: r '.r :t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l.'t, tr;[+lt;