Telangana High Court
Mrs. Zakia Begum 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.15580 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 05.05.2026
Between:
Mrs.Zakia Begum and another
...Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
rep by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government
Pleader for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Midde
Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for
respondent Nos.2 and 3. 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 issue an appropriate writ order or directions more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the acts of the respondents
more particularly the acts of the respondent No.3 in not taking any
action on the representation of the petitioners No.1 dated 17.04.2026
and not initiating any action on the illegal constructions being made by
the respondent No.4 on premises bearing H.No.9-8-403 situated at
Bada Bazar, Opp Mirza Palace function Hall, Golconda, Hyderabad as
being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the
respondent No.3 to take immediate action as per law against the illegal
constructions being made by the respondent No.4 on the premises
bearing H.No.9-8-403 situated at Bada Bazar, Opp Mirza Palace
function Hall, Golconda Hyderabad and pass…”
3. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner No.1
claims to be the absolute owner of an ancestral residential house
bearing Municipal H.No.9-8-404/1, situated opposite Mirza Palace,
Golconda, Hyderabad. It is submitted that respondent No.4, who is
2
the immediate neighbour of the petitioners, has commenced
construction of a Ground + 3 floors building on his premises bearing
H.No.9-8-403, situated at Bada Bazar, opposite Mirza Palace Function
Hall, Golconda, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that respondent
No.4 has illegally encroached upon approximately 4 feet of the
common passage between the petitioner’s house and that of
respondent No.4. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 is
proceeding with the construction of the upper floors by laying slabs,
thereby blocking ventilation to the petitioner’s house. The petitioners
requested respondent No.4 to leave sufficient space for ventilation,
however, instead of complying, respondent No.4 allegedly threatened
the petitioners with dire consequences and continued the illegal
construction. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner No.1 made a
representation dated 17.04.2025 to respondent No.3-the Deputy
Commissioner, Circle-32, Golconda Zone, Hyderabad, seeking to stop
the illegal construction being carried out by respondent No.4.
However, no action has been taken on the said representation till
date. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The case of the petitioners is that on 17.04.2026, the
petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to respondent No.3,
requesting them to take necessary action against the illegal and
unauthorized construction undertaken by respondent No.4 on the
subject property. However, the said representation is still pending
consideration. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the
petitioners has filed the present writ petition.
3
5. The learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 3 submits that if the petitioner’s representation
dated 17.04.2026, is still pending for consideration, the respondent
authorities would consider the same and take action 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 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.
4
Section 433 of GHMC Act, 1955
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.”
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
5
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 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
6
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
“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.”
7
8. 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.
9. 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, 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 eye1
((2009) 15 SCC 705)
8either 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.
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
9political 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 2, 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 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 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)5SCC282 predilections and
peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required
to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal
principles.”
10
11. 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 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 to Appeal (C) Nos.12199-12200/2025 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
11may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be
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 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
12
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 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
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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave
certain directions and guidelines 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 the
respondent No.4 and take appropriate action. As such, in the present
case, issuance of notice to the respondent No.4 is dispensed with.
15. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ representation
dated 17.04.2026, and take further course of action, strictly in
accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks.
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
NSP
