The High Court · 2026

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mrr be pleased to direct the Official Respondent Nos 1 to 4 to consider the representa dated 11.8.2025 to take the necessary action against the i commercial buildings and illegally developing the Layout in County" in violation of the G.O.No.1 1 1 in S.No.55, 63 & 6r ions of the Petitioner egal construction of .he name of " Kings Yenkapally Village, Moinabad lr/andal, Ranga Reddy District ending the writ peti:i )n. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N.PURUSHOTHAM REDD\' Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN ,A {D URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA If :DDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s to 7 : -- The Court made the following ORDER n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8828 of 2o26 DATE OF OR-DER: 25.o3.2o26 Between: Alagani Rajeshwar Goud, S/o. Alagani Srihari Goud AND ...Petitioner The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, TS Secretariat, Hyderabad & 6 others ...Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated

11.O8.2O25 requesting to take the necessary action against the illegal construction of commercial buildings and illegally developing the layout in the name of "Kings County'' without any permission and in violation ol G.O.Ms.No.11 1 in Survey Nos.55, 63 and 64, Yenkapally Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred as "subject properq/'). A consequential prayer is sought to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.O4.2025. 2

2. Brief facts of the case as stated are that tl e pe titioner is in possession of ancestral agricultural iands in Sttri :y Nos.54/A and 55/A situated at Yankapally, Moinabad Mandal, Ra rgareddy District. Tt is submitted that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 a -e constructing a commercial building and are developing a layout ir-r t re name of "Kings County" without obtaining any permission from ll e Municipalit5r in violation of G.O.Ms.No.111 in the subject property. Aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.S to 7, the petitioner mz.r e representations on 11.O8.2O25 and 18.03.2026 requesting the resp, ndent authorities to take immediate action against the illegal ,:,r Lstructions being undertaken in the subject properly. But till date. r r action has been initiated on the aforesaid representations. As sucl: , the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner su l nits that since petitioner's representations dated 1 i.O8.2O25 and ''.O3.2026 are still pending for consideration, the respondent authoritre s may be directed to consider the same and take action in a tirne bourL, period.

4. Mr. P.Krrshna Reddy, learned Standing Couns 11 for Municipality appearing for respondent No.2 would submit thz I to the extent of disposal of the petitioner's pending representat cns, appropriate orders may bc passcd.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner an<[ learned Standing Counscl appearing for responder-rt lJo.2. 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 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.

7. It is not out of place to mention Section 7(61 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certifrcation System (TS- bPASS) Act,2O2O (for short'the TS-bPASS Act) encourages citizens to put on notice to the Civic Authorities regarding unauthorized constructions. Section 7 (61 of the TS-bPASS Act is extracted for reference. "7, Approval of Building Permissions- (6) Citizens sha-1l be encouraged to bring to the notice of Municipality alrd District Collector cases where unauthorized constr,-rction or construction in violation of or in excess of permissions, in the mzrnner prescribed. The identity of such informers shall be kept confidentia-l. All such cases shall be examined within a week from such information and appropriate action initrated. The information shall be incentivized in all such cases where the 4 information, furnished try him is found o be correct. "

8. The Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Shanti Sport i Club and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Orsl, heid [hat violr .ors of [he Town Planning Scheme cannot be granted any relie '. The relevant observations are as under: "52. Before concluding, we consider it necessor to enler a caueat. In all deueloped countries, !n',at entphas{s has been laid on the plait ed deuetopmert of cities qnd urban areos. The ob ect of planned deuelopment Lrus bee,n achrcu,ztt bg igorous eniorcement of master plans prept.ed afier careful studg of complex issues, scie,t fic research and rationalization of laws. The peopl of tlrcse counties haue greatly contibuted to he concept of planned deuelopment of cities bg stli tlg adlteing to the plarun[ng lau,s, the moster plot tc. Theg respect th,e lalos enacted bg the legisk t o'e for reguLating planned deuelopment of the d es and seldom there is a complatnt of uiolation of moster plan etc. in the construction oJ buildtn :,s, residential, institutional o r commercial. ln conlrast, scenoio in the deueloping counl, es like ours is substantiallg differert. Thouglt" he competent legtslatures have, Jrom time to tq Le, enacted lanas for ensuing planned deueloprne,t of the cities and urb<tn areas, enforcement th(t ,of ho.s been extremelA poor and the people lu ue uiotqted the master plans, zoning plans c-td buttding regutatiots and bAe-laus u.tith impu;r g. In last four decades, almost qll cities, big or sr t lt, haue seen unplanned groutlt In the 21st centu A, the menoce of iltegal and unauthort,d ' ((2009) 1s SCC 7O5) /) 7 5 constructions and. encroachments Lns acquired. morlstrous proportions and eueryone has been paAing heauA pice for the same- Economicallg alluent peoplc and those h<tutng support of the political and executiue appqrqtus of the State haue constnlcted buildings, commercictl complexes, multiplexes, malls etc. in blatant violation of tte municipal and totun planning lanus, master plans, zonal deueloptnent plans and euen trc sanctioned building plans. In most of the CASes of ilLeaalor unauthoized constn) ctions. the o of the munlcipal and other redulatoru bodies tum blind eue either uence of hioher to tLu. the Sfate or other lLncti onanes o reasons. Those who constr-uct buildings in uiolation of the releuant statutory prouisions, masler plan etc. ond those who cltrec g or indirecttA abet such uiolattons are totallA unmindful oJ the graue consequences of their actions and/ or omissions on the present cts well as future generations of the country uthich tuiLl be forced to liue in unplanned. cities and urbcln ereas. The peopte belonging to lfus class do not reqllze that the con_stntctions made in uiolation of the releuant laus, master plan or zonal deuelopment plon or sanctioned building plan or the butlding is used for q purpose other than the one specifted. in the releuant statute or the master plcln etc., ct itie ,a Iic n nities like l0atea fona c c the road.s. The pollution caused due to tralfrc congestion affects the health of the road users. The pedestians and people belonging to tueaker sections of th,e societg, LUho canruot afford the htxury of air conditioned ccLrs, qre the Luorst urctims of pollution. Theg su,fJer from str.z drseases of diflerent tgpes, asthmc., allergtes and euen more dreaded diseases li.ke cancer. tt can onlg be a r I 0 t. matter of imagination how much the gou<:rt has to spend on the treatment of such persor : .Lent 't on the to n uen to tlle uioldtor o the enuironment due to traffi"c congestion tt roads and chaotic condittons creqted due to ir qnd unauthorized constnrctions. This Coun !q9, ftoln tine to time, taken coqnizant buildings constructed in uiolation municipal qnd. other lauts and empho. zed. that no comD"omise should. be made uitl the town Dlannino scheme qnd. no relief sholl 7 be lqt t Lino scheme etc. on the sround. thqt he h(I.s | \U! substanticrl annount on constratction of the - K. R(rr,trd(Is Shenou a. < tueI buildinss etc. Offi.cers. Toun Munici oal Council, UdiDi ) 974 scc 506 Dr. G.N. Kh uria u. L "lhi Deueloomen t Authoritu 1995 l5l SCC 762 , ry.L Builders Pat. Ltd. a Ro.dheu S,'! t_s4 So-hu 7999 (61 SCC 464 Friends C ) 949 DeaeloDment _eI Orissq. 2OO4 18, SCC 733, M.C. Mehta v. ll ion ;.N. Chq.nd.rasekhq.r u. St(tte of Karnqtqka ? )06 t3t scc 208. Committee o. State India 2O06 l3l SCC 399 and

53. Unfortunatelg, despite repeated judgmet L the this Court and High Courts, the builder.; oth,er affluent people engaged in the constr t. actiuities, wlto Lwue, ouer th.e years shown s respect for regulotory mechanism envisaged r munictpal qnd other similar laws, as o,ls ) master plans, zonal deuelopment ll sanctioned plons etc., haue re(€ encouragement and support from the ! apparqtus. As qnd uhen the courts haue 7t orders or the off.cers of local and other bodies r token action for ensuing rigorous campliar c lanus relating to planned deuelopment of tlrc c 'ctnt u1s, :dte :of /. 7 and urban areas and issted direction-s Jor demolition oJ illegal/ unauthorized constructions, those in power haue come JonDard to protect the urong doers either bg issuing admtntstratiue orders or enactlng laus for illegal and unauthoriz,ed regularization of constnrctions in the ndme of compassion and hardship. Such qctions haue done ireparable hafln to the concept of planned deuelopment oJ the cittes and urban areas. It is high time that the executive (I,rd politic(I.l appqrqtus of the Sta,tc tq.ke serious view of the t enqce of illegal and unquthorized constractions and stap theil support to the lobbies Af qffluelt elrr.ss 9f build.ers and others else euen the rurql greas of the countru will soon oitness simllqr chaotic conditions. " lEnphqsis suopliedl

22. Further, the Hontrle Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Ors (2013) 5 SCC 357, held that Constitutional Courts ought not to exercise their equitable jurisdiction to regularize illegal and unauthorized constructions. The relevant observations are as under: "45. In uiew of the aboue discassio& ute hoLd that the Petitioners in the transfened case haue Jailed to tnake out a case for directing the Respondents to reguLarize the constnrction rnqde in uiolation of the sanctioned plan. Rather, the rqtto of the aboue- noted judgments and, in particltlor, Rogal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) is clearly ottracted in the present case. We .aould th:o,,t no authoritg administering rnunicipal lanus and. other similar lqus cc.r. encourqge aiolation of the sqlrlctioned plq,n. The Courts dre qlso reiterqte 8 expected. to refiain from exe"cisin,g equit jurisdiction for regularization of illegai unquthorized constructions eLse it ut' encourqge violqtors of the planaing tano:; d.estrog the aery idea and concept oJ plot d.evelopment of urban as well as tttrql qte (emphasis supplied)" tnd. tnd. ts."

9. It is also relevant to refer to the orders pasr; d by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civi! No.295 of : io22 12024 (NSC 866) (Bulldozer's Casel, wherein the Hon'ble Su 1 reme court gave certain directions and guidelines to the Governme rt for manner of proceeding in demolition of the unauthorized consrn c tion.

10. Since the provisions of the Telangana Muni< i ralities Act, 2O 19 and GHMC Act, 1955 mandates issuance of nrtr.i )e to the person concerned and the civic authorities are empowerc ( to examine and decide the issue with respect to unauthorized , onstructions, by issuing notice to the concerned parties, the responct nt authorities are directed to issue notice to the concerned parties. As such, in the present case, issuance of notice to respondent Nos. I to 7 is dispensed with-

11. Having considered the above facts and circu:r stance, recording the submission made by the learned counsel appea- eg on either side, without expressing any opinion on the merits of .1 e case and alter considering judicial precedents referred to hereire deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ 1 bove, this Court etition directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioncr' representations 4 9 dated 11.08.2025 and IS.O3.2O 26 and after giving fair opp611pniry o1 hearing to petitioner and respondent Nos.S to 7 and after verifying the sanctioned plan and other relevant documents, shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (o4) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the pedtioner. It is made clear that if the allegations made by the pedtioner are found to be true, the respondent authorities shall take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. 12. It is also clarified that in the event of respondent Nos.S to T are otherwise aggrieved may avail remedy of filing application for the modilication of th[s order, in accordance with iaw. 13. With the above directions, There shall be no order as to costs this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR sEcTtoN oFFtcER To 9ecretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secre-tary, Municipal Administration Department, T S 2. The Commissioner, Moina6ad Muniiipality, Moinabad, R R District. 3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal, R R District. 5. TWo CCS to GP FOR h/CPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELoPIVENT. Hioh 6. Two CCs to Gp.FOR REVENUE, Higir Court toitne State of Telangana at 7. One CC to SRt N_P_Uf,.USfiOTHAM REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] I 9n" 99 to SRt PUTTA KRTSHNA REDDY, Advocare (opucf ' Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT] cD coPies \ q Y "rn"#o ;R lilEs l2 rroll ?rrrl --_ 'l o,J !:)- .\-.. HIGH COURT DATED:2510312026 ORDER WP.No.8828 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \ Io( 4 W l.