[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Alagani Rajeshwar Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                 AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


              WRIT PETITION No.8828 of 2026
               DATE OF ORDER: 25.03.2026

Between:

Alagani Rajeshwar Goud, S/o. Alagani Srihari Goud

                                                       ...Petitioner
                                AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration Department,
TS Secretariat, Hyderabad & 6 others
                                                   ...Respondents


ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent

Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the petitioner's representation dated

11.08.2025 requesting to take the necessary action against the illegal

construction of commercial buildings and illegally developing the

layout in the name of "Kings County" without any permission and in

violation of G.O.Ms.No.111 in Survey Nos.55, 63 and 64, Yenkapally

Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred

as "subject property"). A consequential prayer is sought to direct the

respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation

dated 11.08.2025.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner is in

possession of ancestral agricultural lands in Survey Nos.54/A and

55/A situated at Yankapally, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District.

It is submitted that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are constructing a

commercial building and are developing a layout in the name of "Kings

County" without obtaining any permission from the Municipality in

violation of G.O.Ms.No.111 in the subject property. Aggrieved by the

action of respondent Nos.5 to 7, the petitioner made representations

on 11.08.2025 and 18.03.2026 requesting the respondent authorities

to take immediate action against the illegal constructions being

undertaken in the subject property. But till date, no action has been

initiated on the aforesaid representations. As such, the present writ

petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since

petitioner's representations dated 11.08.2025 and 18.03.2026 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. P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality

appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that to the extent of

disposal of the petitioner's pending representations, appropriate

orders may be passed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

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 (TS-

bPASS) Act, 2020 (for short 'the TS-bPASS Act') 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."

8. 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 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

((2009) 15 SCC 705)

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)"

9. It is also relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022 (2024 INSC

866) (Bulldozer's Case), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave

certain directions and guidelines to the Government for manner of

proceeding in demolition of the unauthorized construction.

10. Since the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019

and GHMC Act, 1955 mandates issuance of notice to the person

concerned and the civic authorities are empowered to examine and

decide the issue with respect to unauthorized constructions, by

issuing notice to the concerned parties, the respondent authorities are

directed to issue notice to the concerned parties. As such, in the

present case, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7 is dispensed

with.

11. Having considered the above facts and circumstance, recording

the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after

considering judicial precedents referred to hereinabove, this Court

deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing

respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representations

dated 11.08.2025 and 18.03.2026 and after giving fair opportunity of

hearing to petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 7 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.

12. It is also clarified that in the event of respondent Nos.5 to 7 are

otherwise aggrieved may avail remedy of filing application for the

modification of this order, in accordance with law.