Telangana High Court
Dr. G. Padmavathy vs The State Of Telangana on 5 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.15067 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 05.05.2026
Between:
Dr.G.Padmavathy W/o.A.V.Prasad
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three (03)
others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudan
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents 1 to 3 to
forthwith inspect the property of the 4th Respondent, issue necessary
stop-work notice, take action under the relevant provisions of the
GHMC Act, 1955 and Building Rules for removal/demolition of the
illegal portions (including toilets, doors, ventilators and setback
violations), and ensure that no openings face directly into the
Petitioner’s premises, and direct Respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate
protection to the Petitioner from further threats, harassment and
nuisance by the 4th Respondent, keeping in view her status as a senior
2citizen and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice…”
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner claims to be
absolute owner and possessor of residential property bearing Plot No.50 in
Survey No.41 Part, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal,
Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated
20.04.2010. The petitioner constructed a residential building after obtaining
building permission and occupancy certificate from GHMC. It is the case of
the petitioner that respondent No.4, owner of the adjoining property, has
undertaken unauthorized constructions and modifications in violation to the
sanctioned plan, Building Rules and provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955. It is
stated that respondent No.4 converted the premises into a residential college,
hostel without obtaining permission for change of use and constructed toilets,
doors and ventilators abutting the common boundary wall, directly facing the
petitioner’s premises, thereby causing obstruction to ventilation and natural
light and invasion of privacy and nuisance. The petitioner submitted a
complaint dated 20.04.2026 to respondent No.3 requesting action against the
illegal constructions. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to take any
action despite being statutory authorities under the GHMC Act. Aggrieved by
the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not preventing the unauthorized
constructions, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate
relief.
4. Though several grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel
for the petitioner confines his submissions to the limited extent of seeking a
3
direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the complaint dated
20.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate action in
accordance with law against the illegal and unauthorized constructions and
deviations undertaken by respondent No.4.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that to
the extent of the consideration of complaints made by the petitioner, the
respondent authorities would consider the same and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law.
6. 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
citizens to put on notice to the Civic Authorities regarding unauthorized
constructions. Section 7(6) of the TS-BPASS 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 shall be kept confidential. All such cases
shall be examined within a week from such information and appropriate
action initiated. The information shall be incentivized in all such cases
where the information, furnished by him is found to be correct.”
7. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to some of the relevant
Sections of GHMC Act, 1955, the same are extracted hereunder:-
Section 428 of GHMC Act, 1955
4“Every person who intends to erect a building shall give to the
Commissioner notice of his said intention in a form, obtained for this
purpose under section 435, specifying the position of the building
intended to be erected, the description of building, the purpose for
which it is intended, its dimensions and the name of the person whom
he intends to employ to supervise its erection.”
Section 433 of GHMC Act, 1955
“Every person who shall intend–
(a) to make any addition to a building; or
(b) to make any alteration or repairs to a building; not being a frame-
building, involving the removal or re-erection of any external or party-
wall thereof or of any wall which supports the roof thereof, to an extent
exceeding one-half of such wall above the plinth level, such half to be
measured in superficial feet; or
(c) to make any alteration or repairs to a frame-building, involving the
removal or re-erection of more than one-half of the posts in any such
wall thereof as aforesaid or involving the removal or re-erection of any
such wall thereof as aforesaid to an extent exceeding one-half of such
wall above the plinth level, such half to be measured in superficial feet;
or
(d) to make any alteration in a building involving:– (i) the sub-
division of any room in such building so as to convert the same into
two or more separate rooms; (ii) the conversion of any passage or space
in 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; Shall 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 its execution.”
Section 451 of GHMC Act, 1955
“The Commissioner may at any time during the erection or re-
erection of a building or the execution of any such work as is
described in section 433 make an inspection thereof without
giving previous notice of his intention so to do.”
Section 452 of GHMC Act, 1955
5
452. (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the construction or
re-construction of any building or execution of any work as
described in section 433 is commenced or carried out contrary to
the provisions of the Act or building rules or bye-laws made
thereunder, he shall make a provisional order requiring the person
who is constructing or re-constructing such building or executing
such work or has constructed or re-constructed such building or
executed such work to demolish such unauthorized construction
or re-construction or work within a period specified to bring such
construction or re-construction of the building or work in
conformity with the provisions of the Act or building rules or
Bye-laws made thereunder and may also 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.
Section 456 of GHMC Act, 1955
“Dangerous 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, wall, parapet, pavement, floor, steps,
railings, door or window frames or shutters or roof, or other
structure and anything affixed to or projection from or resting
on, any building, wall, parapet or other structure) is in ruinous
condition or likely to fall, or is in any way dangerous to any
person occupying, resorting to or passing by, such structure or
any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the
Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or
occupier of such structure to do one or more of the following
things, namely:–
(i) to pull down,
(ii) to secure,
(iii) to remove, or
(iv) to repair such structure or thing, and to prevent all cause of
danger therefrom.
(2) The Commissioner may also, if he thinks fit, require the said
owner or occupier by the said 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 the
protection of passers-by and other persons, with a convenient
6platform and hand-rail, if there be room enough for the same the
Commissioner shall think the same desirable, to serve as footway
for passengers outside of such hoard or fence.
(3) If it appears to the Commissioner that the danger from a
structure which is ruinous or about to fall is imminent, he may,
before giving notice as aforesaid or before the period of notice
expires, fence off, take down, secure or repair the said structure
or take such steps or cause work to be executed as may be
required to arrest the danger.
(4) Any expenses incurred by the Commissioner under sub-
section (3) shall be paid by the owner or occupier of the
structure.
(5) (a) Where the Commissioner is of opinion whether on receipt
of an application or otherwise that the only or the most
convenient means by which the owner or occupier of structure
such as is referred to in sub-section (1) can pull down, secure,
remove or repair such structure, is by entering any of the
adjoining premises belonging to some other person the
Commissioner after giving such person a reasonable opportunity
of stating any objection may, if no such objection is raised or if
any objection which is raised appears to him invalid or
insufficient, by an order in writing, authorise the said owner or
occupier to enter such adjoining premises.
(b) Every such order bearing the signature of the Commissioner
shall be a sufficient authority to the person in whose 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 and workmen, at any time between sunrise and
sun set, and to execute the necessary work.
(c) In executing, any work under this section as little damage as
possible shall be done to the adjoining owner’s property, and the
owner or occupier of premises for the benefit of which the work is
done, shall —
(i) cause the work to be executed with the least practicable delay;
(ii) pay compensation to any person who sustains damage by the
execution of the said work.
Section 461-A of GHMC Act, 1955
7
“It shall be lawful for the Commissioner, at any time, before or
after making an order for the removal or discontinuance 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 police, for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of the Act.”
Section 636 of GHMC Act, 1955
“636. (1) If any work or thing requiring the written permission
of the Commissioner under any provision of this Act or any rule,
regulation or bye-law is done by any person without obtaining
such written permission or if such written permission is
subsequently suspended or revoked for any reason by the
Commissioner, such work or thing shall be deemed to be
unauthorised and subject to any other provision of this Act the
Commissioner may at any time, by written notice, require that
the same shall be removed, pulled down or undone as the case
may be, by the person so carrying out or doing if the person
carrying out such work or doing such thing is not the owner at
the time of such notice then the owner at the time of giving such
notice shall be liable for carrying out the requisitions of the
Commissioner.
(2) If within the period specified in such written notice the
requisitions contained therein are not carried out by the person
or owner, as the case may be, the Commissioner may remove or
alter such work or undo such thing and the expenses thereof
shall be paid by such person or owner as the case may be.”
8. On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the respondent
authorities are vested with statutory powers to inspect any property, at any
time and after putting notice and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to
the concerned parties, may take appropriate action against the unauthorized
constructions on the properties, in accordance with law.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and Ors. Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors ((2009) 15 SCC 705), held that violators of the
8
Town Planning Scheme cannot be granted any relief. The relevant
observations are as under:
“52. Before concluding, we consider it necessary
to enter a caveat. In all developed countries, great
emphasis has been laid on the planned
development of cities and urban areas. The object
of planned development has been achieved by
rigorous enforcement of master plans prepared
after careful study of complex issues, scientific
research and rationalisation of laws. The people of
those countries have greatly contributed to the
concept of planned development of cities by
strictly adhering to the planning laws, the master
plan etc. They respect the laws enacted by the
legislature for regulating planned development of
the cities and seldom there is a complaint of
violation of master plan etc. in the construction of
buildings, residential, institutional or
commercial. In contrast, scenario in the
developing countries like ours is substantially
different. Though, the competent legislatures
have, from time to time, enacted laws for
ensuring planned development of the cities and
urban areas, enforcement thereof has been
extremely poor and the people have violated the
master plans, zoning plans and building
regulations and bye-laws with impunity. In last
four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have
seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the
menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions
and encroachments has acquired monstrous
proportions and everyone has been paying heavy
price for the same. Economically affluent people
and those having support of the political and
executive apparatus of the State have constructed
buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes,
malls etc. in blatant violation of the municipal
and town planning laws, master plans, zonal
development plans and even the sanctioned
building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or
unauthorized constructions, the officers of the
municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind
eye either due to the influence of higher
functionaries of the State or other extraneous
reasons. Those who construct buildings in
9violation of the relevant statutory provisions,
master plan etc. and those who directly or
indirectly abet such violations are totally
unmindful of the grave consequences of their
actions and/or omissions on the present as well as
future generations of the country which will be
forced to live in unplanned cities and urban
areas. The people belonging to this class do not
realize that the constructions made in violation of
the relevant laws, master plan or zonal
development plan or sanctioned building plan or
the building is used for a purpose other than the
one specified in the relevant statute or the master
plan etc., such constructions put unbearable
burden on the public facilities/amenities like
water, electricity, sewerage etc. apart from
creating chaos on the roads. The pollution
caused due to traffic congestion affects the health
of the road users. The pedestrians and people
belonging to weaker sections of the society, who
cannot afford the luxury of air- conditioned cars,
are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer
from skin diseases of different types, asthma,
allergies and even more dreaded diseases like
cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination
how much the government has to spend on the
treatment of such persons and also for controlling
pollution and adverse impact on the environment
due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic
conditions created due to illegal and
unauthorized constructions. This Court has,
from time to time, taken cognizance of
buildings constructed in violation of
municipal and other laws and emphasized
that no compromise should be made with the
town planning scheme and no relief should
be given to the violator of the town planning
scheme etc. on the ground that he has spent
substantial amount on construction of the
buildings etc. – K. Ramdas Shenoy v. Chief
Officers, Town Municipal Council,
Udipi 1974 (2) SCC 506, Dr. G.N. Khajuria v.
Delhi Development Authority 1995 (5) SCC
762, M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam
Sahu 1999 (6) SCC 464, Friends Colony
Development Committee v. State of
Orissa 2004 (8) SCC 733, M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India 2006 (3) SCC 399 and S.N.
10Chandrasekhar v. State of Karnataka 2006
(3) SCC 208.
53. Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by
the this Court and High Courts, the builders and
other affluent people engaged in the construction
activities, who have, over the years shown scant
respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in
the municipal and other similar laws, as also the
master plans, zonal development plans,
sanctioned plans etc., have received
encouragement and support from the State
apparatus. As and when the courts have passed
orders or the officers of local and other bodies
have taken action for ensuring rigorous
compliance of laws relating to planned
development of the cities and urban areas and
issued directions for demolition of the
illegal/unauthorized constructions, those in
power have come forward to protect the wrong
doers either by issuing administrative orders or
enacting laws for regularization of illegal and
unauthorized constructions in the name of
compassion and hardship. Such actions have done
irreparable harm to the concept of planned
development of the cities and urban areas. It is
high time that the executive and political
apparatus of the State take serious view of
the menace of illegal and unauthorized
constructions and stop their support to the
lobbies of affluent class of builders and
others, else even the rural areas of the
country will soon witness similar chaotic
conditions. ” (Emphasis supplied)
10. The Apex Court has time and again discouraged the practice
of regularizing deviations made in sanctioned plans. The Supreme
Court in Seema Arshad Zaheer and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corpn. of
Greater Mumbai and Ors, (2006) 5 SCC 282 has held that
unauthorized constructions cannot be compounded. The relevant
observations are extracted for reference:
“30. It is true that in cases relating to orders for
demolition of buildings, irreparable loss may occur if
the structure is demolished even before trial, and an
opportunity to establish by evidence that the structure
11was authorised and not illegal. In such cases, where
prima facie case is made out, the balance of
convenience automatically tilts in favour of the
Plaintiff and a Plaintiffs injunction will be issued to
preserve status quo. But where the Plaintiffs do not
make out a prima facie case for grant of an injunction
and the documents produced clearly show that the
structures are unauthorised, the court may not grant
a temporary injunction merely on the ground of
sympathy or hardship. To grant a temporary
injunction, where the structure is clearly
unauthorised and the final order passed by the
Commissioner (of the Corporation) after
considering the entire material directing
demolition, is not shown to suffer from any
infirmity, would be encourage and perpetuate an
illegality. We may refer to the following observations
of this Court in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey
Shyam Sahu (MANU/SC/0999/1999 : (1999) 6 SCC
464) made in a different context: (SCC p.529, para
73)
This Court in numerous decisions has held that
no consideration should be shown to the builder
or any other person where construction is
unauthorised. This dicta is now almost
bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the
Appellant and the prospective allottees of the
shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding
the relief. Such a discretion cannot be
exercised which encourages illegality or
perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised
construction, if it is illegal and cannot be
compounded, has to be demolished. There
is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be
guided by expediency. Courts are not free
from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered
in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled
to exercise discretion wearing the robes of
judicial discretion and pass orders based solely
on their personal (2006) 5 SCC 282
predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial
discretion wherever it is required to be exercised
has to be in accordance with law and set legal
principles.”
11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of
12
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 extracted for
reference:
“45. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
Petitioners in the transferred case have failed to make
out a case for directing the Respondents to regularize
the construction made in violation of the sanctioned
plan. Rather, the ratio of the above- noted judgments
and, in particular, Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. v.
State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) is clearly attracted
in the present case. We would like to reiterate that
no authority administering municipal laws and
other similar laws can encourage violation of
the sanctioned plan. The Courts are also
expected to refrain from exercising equitable
jurisdiction for regularization of illegal and
unauthorized constructions else it would
encourage violators of the planning laws and
destroy the very idea and concept of planned
development of urban as well as rural areas.”
(emphasis supplied)”
Echoing the above said principle the Supreme Court in Sanjay Adlakha Vs.
State of Haryana and Ors, rejected the request for regularization of unauthorized
construction made to a residential building.
12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin and Ors. in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.12199-12200 of 2025 while dismissing the Special
Leave to Appeal observed as under:
“5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra
Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves
very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made
scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and
regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice
of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any
leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised
construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our
decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions:
“(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an
undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the
case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will
13be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries
only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from
the authorities concerned.
(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at
the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the
entire period of construction and the authorities concerned
shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record
of such inspection in their official records.
(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied
that the building is constructed in accordance with the
building planning permission given and there is no deviation
in such construction in any manner, the
completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential /
commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to
the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any
deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with
the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation
certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations
pointed out are completely rectified.
iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity,
water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the
service provider / Board to the buildings only after the
production of the completion/occupation certificate.
(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation /
violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought
to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the
said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the
builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is
responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation
certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.
(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade
must be given by any authorities including local bodies of
States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building
irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.
(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal
plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and
usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place
and in consideration of the larger public interest and the
impact on the environment.
(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective
authority under the planning department/local body for co-
operation from another department to take action against any
14
unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate
assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction
would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take
disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is
brought to their knowledge.
(ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being
filed by the owner or builder against the non- issuance of
completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised
construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall
be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the
pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in
any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.
(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions
issued by this court and those being passed today, they would
have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the
Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building constructions
would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions
should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the
form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all
directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so
will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being
initiated against the erring officials as per law.
(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against
any building as a security only after verifying the
completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on
production of the same by the parties concerned.
(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to
initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the
prosecution under the respective laws.”
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that her client be given one chance to pray for regularisation of the
unauthorised construction. We do not find any merit in such
submission. A person who has no regards for the law cannot be
permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised
construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of
law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no
way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts
are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in
accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid
aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while
enacting Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on
payment of impact fees.
7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with
cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage
15
themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without
requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for
maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable
duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such
judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being
of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who
flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the
culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the
ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to
undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a
just and orderly society.[See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High
Court)]”
13. It 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 866) (Bulldozer’s
case), wherein certain directions and guidelines were laid down to the
Government for manner of proceeding in demolition of the unauthorized
construction.
14. 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 respondent No. 4. As such, notice to respondent No.4 in this
writ petition is dispensed with.
15. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition directing
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the complaint dated 20.04.2026 submitted
by the petitioner, pending before them and after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and upon verification of
16the relevant records, including sanctioned building permission, approved
building plan, occupancy certificate and other connected documents, pass
appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is made
clear that in the event the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the
illegal and unauthorized constructions, deviations, setback violations and
unauthorized modifications undertaken by respondent No.4 are found to be
true, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take necessary action against the
unauthorized construction, including stoppage of further construction
activity, sealing, removal and demolition of the illegal structures, strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 and the Rules made
thereunder.
16. It is also clarified that in the event of respondent No.4, if otherwise
aggrieved may avail remedy of filing application for the modification of this
order, in accordance with law.
17. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to
costs.
_________________________
N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Dated: 05.05.2026
ADT
17
1180
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.15067 of 2026
Date : 05.05.2026
ADT
