Telangana High Court
M/S. Tech Rappo Llp vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.35731 OF 2025
ORDER :(ORAL) Heard Mr. G.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and perused the material on record.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing H.No.2-22- 261/1/NR (Old H.No.22-2-1), Plot No.4, admeasuring 1081 square yards forming part of Survey No.166, Kukatpally Village, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.4585 of 2025 dated 16.06.2025. It is stated that on application submitted by the vendor of the petitioner, building permission was granted vide file No.008951/GHMC/4447/KPL2/2023-BP for construction of residential building comprising of cellar + ground + 3 upper floors in the subject property. The provisional building permit order was granted on 20.10.2023 and the construction of building is stated to have been completed on 23.04.2025. The vendor of the petitioner applied for Occupancy Certificate (OC) and the same was issued by respondent No.3 on 25.04.2025 and later, the petitioner 2 purchased the subject property on 16.06.2025. While so, show cause notice dated 26.08.2025 was issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner alleging that unauthorized construction of shed was made in the subject property without obtaining any valid permission. The petitioner appeared before respondent No.4 and gave oral explanation. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his oral explanation/representation, the impugned notice No.UC-261/TPS/C-24/KPZ/GHMC/2025 dated 19.09.2025 was issued under Section 461-A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act') and the tin shed/pent house constructed above the permitted cellar + ground + 3 upper floors without valid permission was sealed purportedly in compliance of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12889 of 2025. As such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner has been sealed by respondent No.4 and there are no merits in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the tin shed constructed by the petitioner above the 3rd floor is unauthorized and the petitioner was granted building permission 3 for construction of cellar + ground + 3 upper floors only. Thus, the unauthorized construction made above the 3rd floor was sealed; the sealing was made pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12889 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to apply for revised building plan or for regularization of the unauthorized structures under Sections 455A and 455AA of the GHMC Act.
5. Taking note of the fact, that the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner in the subject property has been sealed pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12889 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in this writ petition. The petitioner is given liberty to apply for revised building plan or for regularization of the unauthorized structures made in the subject property under Sections 455A and 455AA of the GHMC Act. As and when such application is submitted by the petitioner, respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to consider the same, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. 4
6. With the above observations, 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 writ petition, stand closed.
_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 25, 2025 NOTE: Issue C.C. in one (1) week (BO) RRK