Telangana High Court
K.Mahesh vs The State Of Telangana on 11 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.7442 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 11.03.2026
Between:
K.Mahesh, S/o. K.Manohar Rao
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration & Urban Development
Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the speaking order No.20/TPS/C-03/MMC/2026, dated 28.02.2026 and all consequential actions pursuant thereto, alleging deviation and unauthorized construction in respect of the petitioner's property bearing Plot Nos.56 & 57, H.No.10-2-20, situated at Netaji Colony, Fathenagar Division, Bowenpally Circle No.3, Malkajgiri Zone, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred as "subject property"). A consequential prayer is sought to set aside the 2 speaking order dated 28.02.2026 and further to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps, including demolition, sealing or interference with the petitioner's lawful construction, pursuant to the impugned notice.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the subject property, which is a private residential property. The petitioner in order to construct an individual residential building consisting of stilt for parking + 2 upper floors applied for building permission through TS-bPASS online system. The petitioner's application was registered as Building Application File No.010092/GHMC/03254/IABP/C23/2025, dated 28.07.2025. Upon scrutiny, the GHMC granted building permit vide No.2579/GHMC/IA/C23/2025, dated 29.08.2025 permitting the petitioner to construct strictly in accordance with sanctioned plans and applicable building rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner commenced construction and at no point of time has exceeded the sanctioned Stilt + 2 upper floors and had not violated mandatory setbacks. It is further submitted that the allegation made on the petitioner that he raised RCC columns for 3rd floor is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that while the construction was in progress, the respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Bowenpally Circle No.3, Malkajgiri Zone issued Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2025 alleging deviation from the sanctioned plan. 3 Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued proceedings No.12126/UC/2025, dated 04.12.2025 directing to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction within 15 days. In reply to the proceedings dated 04.12.2025, the petitioner submitted a reply on 02.01.2026 stating that the petitioner made construction by following the sanctioned plan and maintained all mandatory setbacks and that the allegations are baseless. But, till date, the respondents have not considered the petitioner's reply. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondents on the petitioner's reply, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1278 of 2026. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19.01.2026 disposed of W.P.No.1278 of 2026 granting liberty to the petitioner to apply for regularization of the construction under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955 and further directed that the order dated 04.12.2025 shall remain in abeyance for a period of one month to enable the petitioner to submit an application for regularization of his construction. In compliance to the directions of this Court, the petitioner made representation on 20.01.2026 requesting for regularization of his construction on the subject property. However, a speaking order was issued to the petitioner on 28.02.2026 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized constructions within fifteen days. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Perused the record.
4
4. On a perusal of the show cause notice dated 20.11.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Moosapet, Circle-23, GHMC, the petitioner was informed that he is proceeding with the unauthorized construction activity by raising RCC columns for 3rd floor in deviation to the building permit order granted for stilt for parking + 2 upper floors and in not maintaining mandatory setbacks. A copy of the building photograph was also appended to the notice dated 20.11.2025 and was further directed to show sufficient cause by a statement in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice as to why the above unauthorized construction should not be demolished departmentally and to remove the said unauthorized construction within 15 days, failing which, action would be taken by GHMC under Section 636 and 461-A of GHMC Act, 1955 and the expenses thereon will be recovered from the petitioner as per the TG- bPASS Act, 2020 and GHMC Act, 1955 and further directed the petitioner to stop the work forthwith and to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Moosapet, Circle-23, GHMC for personal hearing on 04.12.2025 enabling the petitioner to present his case and to submit oral and written pleadings along with the supporting documents.
5. On perusal of the proceedings dated 04.12.2025, it is submitted that on receipt of the show cause notice dated 20.11.2025, the petitioner has neither submitted the reply nor stopped the work and not attended the personal hearing on 04.12.2025, as such, construed that the petitioner had no explanation to offer and is unwilling to 5 attend personally, as such, the petitioner was directed to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice.
6. Thereafter, aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Moosapet, Circle-23, GHMC on 04.12.2025, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1278 of 2026 seeking to declare the proceedings dated 04.12.2025 in respect of the subject property as being illegal and arbitrary. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was not inclined to entertain the said writ petition and disposed of by an order dated 19.01.2026. The relevant paragraphs of the order are extracted for reference:
5. Learned standing counsel for the GHMC placed on record written instructions and submitted that show-cause notice dated 20.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner as it was found that the petitioner has raised RCC columns in the third floor of the subject property in deviation of the permit order dated 29.08.2025, wherein, the petitioner was permitted to construct stilt + two (2) upper floors. The petitioner was also found not maintaining mandatory setbacks. As the petitioner did not submit explanation to the show-cause notice dated 20.11.2025 and did not attend the personal hearing on 04.12.2025, impugned speaking order dated 04.12.2025 was passed directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within fifteen (15) days. The petitioner was also warned that if unauthorized construction is not removed, it will be dismantled by the enforcing agency.
6. Learned standing counsel further submitted that the petitioner has constructed third floor and pent house (above 6 third floor) over and above permitted stilt + two (2) upper floors.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that third floor and pent house has been constructed. However, he submitted that if necessary the petitioner would avail benefit under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act') and seek regularization of the unauthorized construction.
8. As unauthorized third floor and pent house have been constructed, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
9. However, in the interest of justice, considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will file regularization application under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of the GHMC Act, the impugned order vide No.12126/UC/2025 dated 04.12.2025, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one (1) month from today; within this time, the petitioner shall take appropriate steps to submit application seeking regularization of unauthorized construction made in the subject property. The respondent authorities are at liberty to take action against the petitioner including the sealing of unauthorized floors in the subject property, subject to outcome of such regularization application if any filed or after expiry of one (1) month time if regularization application is not filed."
7. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned speaking order dated 28.02.2026 noting that there are unauthorized constructions of 3rd, 4th and 5th floors, which is in deviation to the sanctioned building permission i.e. for stilt for parking + 2 upper floors and in not maintaining mandatory setbacks. In the said speaking order, it was clarified that the petitioner has not maintained 7 mandatory setbacks as per G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012 and also referred to the orders passed by this Court W.P.Nos.23611 of 2021 and 15787 of 2022, wherein it was ordered that "wherever and whenever they are proposing to demolish, the Municipal authorities shall act upon, only after issuing show cause notice taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the parties on merits and further in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and further referred to orders dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(Civil).NO.295 of 2022 and 17.12.2024 in Civil Appeal No.14604 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.36440 of 2014) and Civil Appeal No.14605 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (e) No.1184 of 2015), wherein it was held that "wherever and whenever they are proposing to demolish, the Municipal authorities shall act upon, only after issuing show cause notice and providing opportunity of personal hearing, taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the parties on merits and further opportunity of appellate and judicial scrutiny on the final orders in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court."
8. Referring to the above judicial precedents, the respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to remove the deviations / unauthorized constructions in the subject property within fifteen (15) days, failing which, further action would be taken to remove, alter or pull down the deviated portion / unauthorized construction as per Section 636 of the HMC Act / as per Section 596 / Section 461(4) / Section 461-A of 8 HMC Act. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 06.03.2026 to respondent No.4 requesting to keep the speaking order dated 28.02.2026 in abeyance and consider the petitioner's application for regularization made under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955.
9. It is apt to refer to Sections 455-A & 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955. The same are extracted for reference:
Section 455-A: Regularization of Buildings constructed without sanctioned plan:- The Commissioner may regularize constructions made without obtaining sanctioned plan, subject to fulfilling the following conditions:-
(a) submission of building plans to the competent authority duly paying all categories of fee and charges;
(b) the construction shall be subject to the condition that all parameters laid down in relevant statutes, Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan, Building Bye-laws, Building Rules and other relevant Government Orders including [Telangana] Fire Service Act, 1999 (Act No.15 of 1999) and the National Building Code are satisfied;
(c) payment of penalty equivalent to thirty three percent (33%) of the various categories of fees and charges payable by the applicant for obtaining building permission in addition to the regular fee and other charges payable.
Section 455-AA: Regularization and penalization of construction of buildings in deviation of sanctioned plan:
Notwithstanding anything in the Act, the Municipal Commissioner may regulate and penalize the constructions of buildings, made by the owner, or by an individual as the 9 case may be, unauthorisedly or in deviation of the sanctioned plan [as on 28/10/2015] as a onetime measure, as per the procedure and by levying such penal amount as may be prescribed and upon payment of such amount all pending or contemplated proceedings and action of enforcement shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the competent authority shall issue Occupancy Certificate to the owner or the individual as the case may be.
10. Though a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to seek regularization under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955, on perusal of Section 455-A of GHMC, it applies to only cases where the Commissioner may regularize constructions made without obtaining sanctioned plan. In the case on hand, the petitioner has already been granted permission for construction of stilt for parking + 2 upper floors, as such the petitioner does not fall under the purview of Section 455-A of GHMC Act. Further, Section 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955 mandates regularization and penalization of construction of buildings in deviation of sanctioned plan, which would attract the case of the petitioner. However, Section 455-AA of GHMC mandates that Municipal Commissioner may regularize and penalize the construction of buildings made by the owner or by an individual, as the case may be, unauthorizedly or in deviation of the sanctioned plan as on 28.10.2015 as an onetime measure. In the case on hand, the petitioner has made representation on 20.01.2026, which is beyond the cut-off date (28.10.2015) as specified under Section 455- AA of GHMC Act, 1955. As such, the petitioner's application does not 10 fall within the purview of Sections 455-A & 455-AA of GHMC Act, 1955.
11. Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, would submit that to the extent of petitioner's pending application, no orders have been passed till date and prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.
12. 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 1 ((2009) 15 SCC 705) 11 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 unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, 12 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 13 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 14 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)"
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Ors 2, 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 2 (2013) 5 SCC 357 15 and concept of planned development of urban as well as rural areas."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
15. Recording the submissions of learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4, since the petitioner is aware about the speaking order dated 28.02.2026 and that the petitioner has gone beyond the permission granted and constructed 3rd, 4th and 5th floors, the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by respondent No.4 does not warrant any interference by this Court and considering the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed to take appropriate action forthwith strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. 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 petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 11.03.2026 Nsk