Syed Farees Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 437 Tel

Telangana High Court

Syed Farees Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                 AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


               WRIT PETITION No.10308 of 2026
                DATE OF ORDER: 07.04.2026

Between:

Syed Farees Ahmed, S/o. Late Jameel Ahmed

                                                           ...Petitioner
                                    AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & 8 others
                                                     ...Respondents


ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent

Nos.5 to 7 in not taking any action against respondent Nos.8 and 9 for

making illegal and unauthorized constructions over the house

property bearing Municipal Door No.23-2-137/B situated at

Moghulpura, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as "subject property")

having received online complaint vide Ref. ID No.2402265729398,

dated 24.02.2026 and through Prajavani vide

Ref.No.DHYDE0203260000, dated 02.03.2026 and physical complaint

dated 17.03.2006. A consequential prayer is sought to direct

respondent Nos.5 to 7 to demolish the illegal structures already

constructed besides taking action for seizing the property.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be the neighbor of respondent Nos.8

and 9, R/o. H.No.23-2-138 situated at Moghulpura, Hyderabad. It is

submitted that one Rasheedullah Khan purchased the subject

property by way of a registered sale deed bearing document

No.2177/2016 dated 11.04.2026 from its original owner Mohammed

Akhil. Subsequently, Rasheedullah Khan applied for building

permission and the same was accorded on 12.04.2016 with certain

condition and the said permission was accorded for residential

purposes only. But in deviation to the sanctioned plan, Rasheedullah

Khan started constructions not leaving the mandatory setbacks and

made commercial constructions such as mulgies / shops. Initially,

the petitioner's brother filed W.P.No.12854 of 2017 before this Court

and this Court granted an interim order dated 12.04.2017 directing

the GHMC authorities to ensure that the construction being

undertaken by Rasheedullah is not in deviation to the sanctioned

plan. Prior to the filing of the writ petition by petitioner's brother, the

petitioner filed O.S.No.599 of 2016 against Rasheedullah and the

original owner Mr. Mohammed Akhil seeking pre emption under

Mohammadan Law and for cancellation of sale deed. Subsequently,

an interim injunction was granted in favor of the petitioner in the year

2016 restraining Rasheedullah Khan from alienating the subject

property. The said interim order was extended from time to time.

Due to some technical reasons, the interim order was not

extended. Taking advantage of the same, the said Rasheedullah Khan

sold the subject property to one Ishaquddin by way of a registered sale

deed bearing document No.941 of 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner

impleaded Ishaquddin in the said suit and when the trial commenced,

Ishaquddin sold the subject property to respondent Nos.8 and 9 by

way of registered document No.1069 of 2025, dated 02.06.2025.

Subsequently, the respondent Nos.8 and 9 were also impleaded by the

petitioner in the said suit seeking consequential reliefs. The trial is

commenced and is in progress. The respondent Nos.8 and 9

commenced illegal constructions in the last week of February without

obtaining fresh permission and are making the said construction on

the plan obtained by Rasheedullah Khan in the year 2016, which was

obtained long back and is expired. Aggrieved by the action of

respondent Nos.8 and 9, the petitioner made representations /

complaint on 24.02.2026, 02.03.2026 & 17.03.2026 through various

modes. As the representations of the petitioner were not acted upon

by the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the

petitioner's representations / complaint are still pending for

consideration, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider

the same and take action in a time bound period.

4. Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC

appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 7 would submit petitioner's

representations / applications dated 24.02.2026, 02.03.2026 and

17.03.2026 will be considered, if not already considered, and

appropriate action would be initiated, in accordance with law, and

would submit to pass appropriate orders.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 7.

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.

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 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:--

(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 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 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 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:-

(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."

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.

In contrast, scenario in the developing countries like ours is substantially different. Though, the competent legislatures have, from time to time,

((2009) 15 SCC 705)

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 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 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. 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

with law. As such, in the present case, issuance of notice to

respondent Nos.8 and 9 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 authorities are directed to consider petitioner's

representations / complaint dated 24.02.2026, 02.03.2026 and

17.03.2026 and to put on notice to respondent Nos.8 and 9 and after

giving fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner and respondent Nos.8

and 9 and after 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 Nos.8 and 9

are otherwise aggrieved may avail remedy of filing application seeking

modification of this order, in accordance with law.

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: 07.04.2026 Nsk