Telangana High Court
Mr. K. Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 6 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.15995 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 06.05.2026
Between:
Mr. K.Vinod Kumar, S/o. K.Laxmaiah
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration & Urban Development
Department,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & 4 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent
Nos.2 to 4 in interfering with the petitioner’s house consisting of G+3
floors constructed in the land admeasuring 230 square yards bearing
H.No.1-195, Balaji Nagar, beside Hanuman Temple, Puppalaguda,
Manikonda, Narsingi Circle-45, GHMC, Rangareddy District
(hereinafter referred as “subject property”), without considering the
petitioner’s application dated 02.05.2026 for regularization under
Sections 455-A and 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955 and in passing the
order dated 30.04.2026 vide
No.G1/UC/TPS/NGSG/SLPZ/CMC/2026/11 under Section 461-A of
2
GHMC Act, 1955, directing the petitioner to vacate the 3rd floor of the
subject property under the guise of earlier Show Cause Notice
No.G1/UC/TPS/NRSG/SLPZ/CMC/2026/11, dated 16.02.2026 and
speaking order No.G1/UC/TPS/NRSG/SLPZ/CMC/2026/11, dated
24.03.2026, which were issued without giving notice to the petitioner
and were served upon the petitioner along with the notice issued
under Section 461-A of GHMC Act, 1955, without affording an
opportunity of hearing. A consequential prayer is sought to set aside
the show cause notice, dated 16.02.2026 and speaking order dated
24.03.2026 and consequential notice issued under Section 461-A of
GHMC Act, 1955, dated 30.04.2026 and to further direct respondent
Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioner’s subject property
pending considering of the petitioner’s application dated 02.05.2026
for regularization under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of GHMC Act,
1955.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner is a senior citizen and claims to be the owner of
the subject property. The petitioner applied for building permission
for construction of G+2 Upper Floors. Accordingly, the petitioner was
granted permission by the then Puppalaguda Gram Panchayat vide
building permission No.58/2011, dated 08.08.2011. Subsequently,
when the petitioner intended to construct an additional floor i.e. 3rd
floor, the petitioner made efforts to obtain a revised sanction plan by
3approaching the Municipal Authorities. However, the municipal
authorities did not respond. The petitioner, being a senior citizen,
entrusted the civil construction work to a contractor to look after the
construction and obtain the required permission. The petitioner made
a representation under Sections 455-A & 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955
to respondent No.2 – Commissioner, GHMC for seeking regularization
of deviations, if any, in respect of the subject property. However, the
Municipal Authorities proceeded with further steps without
considering the petitioner’s representation / application dated
02.05.2026 for regularization. It is further submitted that on
30.04.2026, the office of respondent No.4 – Deputy Commissioner,
Narsingi Circle, Serilingampally Zone issued impugned (sealing) notice
under Section 461-A of GHMC dated 30.04.2026, without considering
the petitioner’s representation submitted for regularization of his
subject property, dated 02.05.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the
present writ petition is filed.
3. Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner’s counsel on record would submit that the impugned
notice dated 30.04.2026 issued by respondent No.4 is under
challenge, wherein the respondent No.4 has directed the petitioner to
vacate the subject premises and to stop all activities immediately,
failing which, the premises will be sealed, without any further notice.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a representation has been
submitted to respondent No.2 on 02.05.2026 seeking regularization of
4
deviations, if any, in respect of the subject property. In the
representation, it is submitted that the subject premises was
constructed on Ground + 2 upper floors pursuant to Gram Panchayat
building permission No.58/2011, dated 08.08.2011 issued by the
then Puppalaguda Gram Panchayat. In the said representation, the
petitioner admits that one additional floor has been constructed and
requested to regularize the said construction.
5. On a similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court in
W.P.Nos.8115 and 8180 of 2026, by order dated 17.03.2026,
elaborately considered the issue relating to the regularization
applications made under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of GHMC Act,
1955. The relevant portions thereof are extracted hereunder:
“9. A perusal of Sections 455-A and 455-AA of the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (GHMC), 1955 are extracted below
for reference:
Section 455A – Regularization of Buildings constructed
without sanctioned plan.
The Commissioner may regularize constructions made without
obtaining sanctioned plan, subject to fulfilling the following
conditions:-
(a) Submission of building plans to the competent authority duly
paying all categories of fee and charges;
(b) The construction shall be subject to the condition that all
parameters laid down in relevant statutes, Master Plan, Zonal
Development Plan, Building Bye-laws, Building Rules and other
relevant Government Orders including [Telangana] Fire Service Act,
1999 (Act No.15 of 1999) and the National Building Code are
satisfied;
5
(c) Payment of penalty equivalent to thirty three percent (33%) of
the various categories of fees and charges payable by the applicant
for obtaining building permission in addition to the regular fee and
other charges payable.
Section 455-AA – Regularisation and penalization of
construction of buildings in deviation of sanctioned plan.
Notwithstanding anything in the Act, the Municipal Commissioner
may regulate and penalize the constructions of buildings, made by
the owner, or by an individual as the case may be, unauthorized or
in deviation of the sanctioned plan [as on 28/10/2015] as a onetime
measure, as per the procedure and by levying such penal amount as
may be prescribed and upon payment of such amount all pending or
contemplated proceedings and action of enforcement shall be
deemed to have been withdrawn and the competent authority shall
issue necessary Occupancy Certificate to the owner or the individual
as the case may be.
11. Section 455-A deals with regularization of buildings constructed
without a sanctioned plan. In the case on hand, since the petitioners
were already granted building permission and constructed beyond the
approved plan, the provisions of Section 455-A do not apply to the
petitioners case seeking for regularization. Further, Section 455-AA
deals with regularization and penalization of construction of buildings in
deviation of a sanctioned plan. The Municipal Commissioner in terms of
Section 455-AA may regulate and penalize the constructions of buildings
which are made by the owner, or by an individual as the case may be
unauthorizedly or in deviation of the sanctioned plan [as on
28/10/2015] as a one-time measure, by levying a penal amount as per
the prescribed procedure.
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
Sections 455-A and 455-AA are not applicable to the petitioners’ case.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the orders passed
by this Court in W.P. No.6241 of 2026 and prays this Court to pass
similar orders. This Court in W.P.No.6241 of 2021, disposed of the
matter on 27.02.2026. However, in the said writ petition, the petitioners
had earlier filed W.P. No.5353 of 2026, which after being argued at
length, the petitioner counsel on instructions had withdrawn the writ
petition seeking liberty. This Court recording the same granted liberty to
the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy as available under law. In
6
W.P. No.6241 of 2026, the learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted that
the petitioners would abide by any orders passed by respondent No.2,
i.e., the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), represented
by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and that in the event of any deviations,
they would comply with the same accordingly. Recording such
submissions, the writ petition was disposed of without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case.
15. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.Ps. No.28640 of 2023 by
order dated 12.10.2023 observed that though the Commissioner is
conferred with powers to regularize unauthorized constructions in
exercise of under Section 455-A of the Act, the word “may” indicate that
the said exercise is discretionary and cannot be sought to be invoked as
a right. Further observed the dicta laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
with respect to the unauthorized constructions and regularization that
any element of such unauthorized portion would encourage and
perpetuate an illegality. The relevant paragraphs were extracted for
reference:
14. That apart, though it was sought to be contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the act confers powers
on the Commissioner to regularize an unauthorized
construction in exercise of powers under Section 455A of the
Act, it is to be noted that though the said provision confers
power on the Commissioner to regularize a deviation made to
the sanctioned plan, the same is circumscribed by usage of the
word ‘may’ which indicates that the said exercise of power is
discretionary and cannot be sought to be invoked as a right.
Further, the commissioner who is a creature under the statue
has to act within the powers conferred on him by the Act. In
other words by the mere usage of the word ‘may’ it cannot be
assumed that the authority is conferred with unfettered and
unbridled powers for regularizing constructions made in
violation of the provisions of the Act and the norms prescribed
under the building regulations. On a similar submission being
made, the Supreme Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors 1, dealing with an
analogous provision of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act,
1
(2013)5SCC353
7
1980 held that the Municipal Commissioner in exercise of his
discretionary powers conferred under Rule 25(3) therein can
only regularise such deviations which fall within the provisions
of the Act. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that a power is
vested with the Commissioner to regularize any deviations
made, in the view of this Court is a farfetched imagination as
the Commissioner can only act within the parameters of the
Act and not beyond that.
15. Further, 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 2, has held
that unauthorized constructions cannot be compounded. The
relevant observations are as under:
“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
was 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 a2
(2006)5SCC282
8discretion 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 predilections and
peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is
required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and
set legal principles.”
16. The Supreme Court had reiterated this principle in Shanti
Sports Club and Ors. Vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors 3, holding
that the Town Planning Scheme should not be compromised and a
violator of the Town Planning Scheme is not entitled to 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
rationalization 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 paying3
(2009)15SCC705
9heavy 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 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, UdipiMANU/SC/0082/1974 :
1974 (2) SCC 506;Dr. G.N. Khajuria v. Delhi
Development Authority MANU/SC/0064/1996 : 1995
10(5) SCC 762;M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam
Sahu MANU/SC/0999/1999 : 1999 (6) SCC
464;Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of
Orissa MANU/SC/0933/2004 : 2004 (8) SCC 733;M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India MANU/SC/8028/2006 : 2006
(3) SCC 399 andS.N. Chandrasekhar v. State of
Karnataka MANU/SC/8005/2006 : 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.”
Echoing the above said principle the Supreme Court in Sanjay
Adlakha Vs. State of Haryana and Ors 4, rejected the request for
regularization of unauthorized construction made to a residential
building.
17. The Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Mumbai and Ors 5, while expressing displeasure
with the practice of regularizing unauthorized constructions held
4
(2011)15SCC387
5
(2013)5SCC357
11
that deviations made deliberately do not deserve to condoned and
compounded. The relevant observations are as under:
“1…Though the municipal laws permit deviations from
sanctioned constructions being regularized by
compounding but that is by way of exception.
Unfortunately, the exception, with the lapse of time and
frequent exercise of the discretionary power conferred
by such exception, has become the rule. Only such
deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide
or are attributable to some misunderstanding or are
such deviations as where the benefit gained by
demolition would be far less than the disadvantage
suffered. Other than these, deliberate deviations do
not deserve to be condoned and compounded.
Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a
bare minimum….
…
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.”
18. In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in
P.Venkateshwarlu & Anr Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
& Ors 6 speaking through the Hon’ble Chief Justice, held that
illegal and unauthorized constructions apart from violating
municipal laws and planned development, also infringe the
fundamental and Constitutional rights of other persons. Thus, this
Court while holding that such constructions are to be dealt strictly
6
W.P. No.12538 of 1999 and W.P. No.25738 of 1997 decided on 04.10.2023
12
to ensure the rule of law ordered demolition of a building
constructed in a park.
19. In view of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the Division bench of this court, and since admittedly the
petitioner herein had constructed 3rd to 5th floors of the building in
deviation of the sanctioned plan, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner is disentitled from claiming any relief in
the Writ Petition.
6. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities
appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the material made
available on the record.
7. On a perusal of the impugned notice dated 30.04.2026, the
respondent No.4 observed that the unauthorized construction was
made only to the extent of third floor over the existing Ground + 2
upper floors in violation to the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, TG-
bPASS Act, 2020 and G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012.
8. The representation / Application dated 02.05.2026 was
submitted by the petitioner for regularization of construction of 3rd
floor. The petitioner submitted that construction was made on G+2
Upper floors in terms of the Gram Panchayat building permission
No.58/2011, dated 08.08.2011 issued by the then Puppalaguda Gram
Panchayat. Thereafter, one additional floor was constructed and
would submit that the contractor, to which the work was entrusted,
did not obtain the building permission and proceeded with the
construction of the additional floor without authorization.
13
9. Section 455-AA stipulates constructions made by any person
unauthorizedly or in deviation to the sanctioned plan as on
28.10.2015. In the case on hand, the petitioner was earlier granted
building permission on 08.08.2011. Later, the petitioner had
submitted the application on 02.05.2026. Applying the provisions of
Section 455-AA of GHMC, 1955, it is clear that the petitioner had
constructed the additional floor beyond the cut off date i.e. on
28.10.2015. More over, the petitioner constructed the additional floor
i.e. 3rd floor without obtaining permission from the respondent
authorities. As such, the petitioner knowingly well has gone ahead
and made further construction beyond the sanctioned plan. Since,
the petitioner had made construction beyond the cut-off date i.e. on
28.10.2015, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of
regularization and penalization of constructions of buildings in
deviation to the sanctioned plan under Section 455-AA of GHMC Act,
1955.
10. Recording the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner, that the petitioner was granted permission for
construction of G+2 Upper Floors vide permission No.58/2011, dated
08.08.2011 issued by the then Puppalaguda Gram Panchayat, the
petitioner is entitled for the usage of Ground + 2 Floors on the subject
property. Accordingly, the impugned notice under Section 461-A of
GHMC Act, 1955, dated 30.04.2026 should be confined only to the
extent of unauthorized construction made on 3rd floor on the subject
14
property for the reason that the petitioner had permission for
construction of G+2 Upper Floors issued by the then Gram Panchayat,
Puppalaguda vide permission No.58/2011, dated 08.08.2011. Since,
the unauthorized construction pertains to additional construction
made on 3rd floor of the petitioner’s property, the respondent
authorities shall deal with such unauthorized portion strictly in
accordance with law.
11. In that view of the matter, the respondent authorities may
examine the petitioner’s application dated 02.05.2026 in the light of
the judicial precedents referred above and take appropriate action to
the extent of unauthorized construction of 3rd floor on the subject
property strictly in accordance with law.
12. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending
in this petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 06.05.2026
Nsk
