Telangana High Court
Smt. Singireddy Bhagya Laxmi vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.11406 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 15.04.2026
Between:
Smt. Singireddy Bhagya Laxmi, S/o. S.Thirupathi Reddy
...Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration & Urban Development
Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 4 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents
in not demolishing the illegal / unauthorized structures / sheds
erected by the unofficial respondent over petitioner’s land
admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas and Ac.1-02 guntas situated in Survey
Nos.42/AA and 43/A of Balapur Village and Mandal, Rangareddy
District (hereinafter referred as “subject property”). A consequential
prayer is sought to direct the official respondents to forthwith
demolish the same.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows:
2
The petitioner claims to be the rightful owner, possessor and
pattadar of the subject property. Though the petitioner identify
boundaries in respect of her land, the neighboring land owners were
not admitting the same and not able to distinguish the boundaries.
As such, the petitioner filed an F-line application on 01.07.2023
seeking survey. However, the concerned authorities failed to conduct
survey. The same was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing
W.P.No.3839 of 2024 before this Court. This Court by an order dated
14.02.2024 directed to re-consider the F-line application dated
01.07.2023. As per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3839 of 2024,
the authorities conducted survey and after demarcation, fixed the
boundaries in respect of the subject property by following the due
procedure as per law. It is submitted that in order to defeat the
petitioner’s rights over the subject property, the respondent No.5
illegally erected sheds / structures, without obtaining any permission
from the competent authorities. Aggrieved by the action of respondent
No.5, the petitioner filed representation on 29.01.2026 before
respondent Nos.2 to 4 to demolish the illegal structures / temporary
sheds erected over the subject property. But till date no action has
been initiated on the petitioner’s representation. As such, the present
writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since
petitioner’s representation dated 29.01.2026 is still pending for
3
consideration, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider
the same and take action in a time bound period.
4. Learned counsel representing Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2
to 4 would submit that to the extent of disposing of the petitioner’s
pending representation dated 29.01.2026, appropriate action would
be taken. It is further submitted that since the subject lands are
shown as agricultural lands falling in Survey Nos.42/AA and 43/A, it
is necessary to locate and verify the same, for which the assistance is
required from revenue officials – respondent Nos.6 and 7, as such,
prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material
made available on the record.
6. Since this Court, time and again, directed the Municipal
Authorities to initiate action against the illegal constructions by
following due process of law, it is noticed that the authorities are
failing to initiate action against the illegal constructions. However, in
some of the cases, authorities are issuing statutory notices and
thereafter not proceeding further to initiate further course of action
unless writ petitions are filed for not considering complaints/
representations made to civic authorities.
4
7. It is not out of place to mention Section 7(6) of the Telangana
State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TG-
bPASS) Act, 2020 (for short ‘the TG-bPASS Act’) encourages citizens to
put on notice to the Civic Authorities regarding unauthorized
constructions. Section 7(6) of the TG-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.”
8. 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
5
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
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:–
6
(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 buildings 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
7
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
neighborhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by
written notice, require the owner or occupier of
8
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
9which 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, authorize 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:-
10
(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
11
alter such work or undo such thing and the
expenses thereof shall be paid by such person
or owner as the case may be.”
9. 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.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and Ors.
Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors 1, 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.
1
((2009) 15 SCC 705)
12In 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 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
13unbearable 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
14other 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:
15
“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. 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.
12. 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 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance
16with law. As such, in the present case, issuance of notice to
respondent No.5 is dispensed with.
13. 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, the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to consider the petitioner’s
representation dated 29.01.2026 and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are
directed to assist respondent Nos.2 to 4 in identifying the subject
lands and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are further directed to put on
notice on respondent No.5 and after giving fair opportunity of hearing
to petitioner and respondent No.5 and verifying the sanctioned plan
and other relevant documents, shall pass appropriate orders strictly
in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,
within a period of four (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 if the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be
true, the respondent authorities shall take appropriate action strictly
in accordance with law.
14. It is also clarified that in the event of respondent No.5 is
otherwise aggrieved may avail remedy of filing application seeking
modification of this order, in accordance with law.
17
15. With the above directions, this 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: 15.04.2026
Nsk