Telangana High Court
Hanuman Residence Welfare Association vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.11446 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 16.04.2026
Between:
Hanuman Residence Welfare Association and two others.
...Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department and nine others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader
for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned
standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7,
learned standing counsel for Telangana State Pollution Control Board
appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri.Sameer Ahmed, learned standing
counsel for HYDRAA appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9. With their
consent, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage
itself.
2. This writ petition has being filed seeking the following prayer:-
“to declare the action of the Respondents Nos.4, 5, 8 and 9 in not shifting
the gas cylinder which are fixed and with the tin sheets and not preventing
from bringing groceries, weasels from other branches projecting towards
northern side of the residential houses as illegal, improper, unjust,
arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of Section 397(1)(a) of GHMC Act,
1955 and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further
direct the Respondent No.8 to consider the representation dated
23.02.2026.”
2
3. Brief facts as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioners are the
residence of the Hanuman Residency, situated at Anand Nagar, New
Malakpet, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the respondent No.10 on
01.12.2025, established an outlet at Door No.16-2-702/2/C and 703/1 to 4,
opposite to Gunj, New Malakpet, Hyderabad. The said building has two
entrances i.e., one leading to the National Highway No.9 and other towards
the backside of the building and the same is adjacent to the petitioners’
residency. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.10 quite
opposite to the petitioners’ residency had fixed commercial gas cylinders in
tin shed sheets without any safety or precautionary measures. Further case of
the petitioners is that the respondent No.10 is having six kitchen outlets,
which is releasing heavy smoke and generating huge noise day-in and day-
out till 1.00 A.M and the residents of the locality are facing problems due to
smoke, noise pollution and other emissions which is unbearable by the
residents on the back side of the respondent No.10 building. Hence, the
petitioners on 08.12.2025, 22.12.2025 and 12.01.2026 made representations and
requested respondent authorities to take immediate action, however, the
same are still pending for consideration. Aggrieved by the pending
consideration, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent for
respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and learned standing counsel for HYDRAA
appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9 submits that if the petitioners’
representations dated 08.12.2025, 22.12.2025 and 12.01.2026 are still pending
3
for consideration, the respondent authorities would consider the same and
take action in accordance with law.
5. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to Section 7(6) of the
Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System
(TS-BPASS) Act, 2020 (for short ‘the TS-BPASS Act’), the same are extracted
hereunder:-
“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.”
6. For better appreciation, this Court deems it appropriate to refer some
of the relevant Sections of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the GHMC Act‘).
Section 428 of the GHMC Act, 1955
428. Notice to be given to commissioner of
intention to erect a building: (1) 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
4
433. Notice to be given to the Commissioner
of intention to make additions, etc., :-
“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
“451. Inspection of buildfings in course of
erection, alteration etc.:- 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.”
5
Section 452 of GHMC Act, 1955
452. Demolition or alteration of the
building work unlawfully commenced,
carried on or completed and appeal
thereon:- (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.
6
(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 platform 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 —
7
(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
“461-A. Powers to seal unauthorized
construction/development of premises:-
(1) 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. 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 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
7. On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the respondent
authorities are vested with statutory powers to inspect any property and after
putting on notice and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties, may take appropriate action against the unauthorized
constructions on such properties, in accordance with law.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and Ors. Vs. Union
of India (UOI) and Ors1, held that violators of the 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,1
((2009) 15 SCC 705)
9multiplexes, 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
violation 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.
Chandrasekhar v. State of
Karnataka 2006 (3) SCC 208.
10
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).
22. Further, the Hon’ble 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 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)”
11
9. 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave certain directions and
guidelines to the Government for manner of proceeding in demolition of the
unauthorized construction.
10. 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 the respondent No.10 is dispensed with.
11. Having considered the above facts and circumstance, recording the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing 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 petitioners’ representations dated 08.12.2025, 22.12.2025 and 12.01.2026
and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to petitioners and respondent
No.10, shall 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
petitioners. It is made clear that if the allegations made by the petitioners are
12
found to be true, the respondent authorities shall take appropriate action
strictly in accordance with law.
12. It is clarified that in the event of respondent No.10 is otherwise
aggrieved may avail remedy of filing application for the modification of this
order, in accordance with law.
13. With the above directions, 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: 16.04.2026
Su