Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court

"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, " Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 1, 2026, held that municipal authorities are under a statutory obligation to act upon complaints regarding unauthorized constructions within a prescribed timeline.

A bench of Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed that the executive cannot remain a silent spectator to the violation of building permits, noting that such inaction leads to unplanned urban growth and places an "unbearable burden" on public infrastructure. The Court emphasized that while demolition must follow the due process of law, authorities must not allow illegal structures to stand with impunity.

The petitioner, Y. Yashwanth, approached the High Court questioning the inaction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) regarding his representation dated April 15, 2026. He alleged that a private respondent was constructing a "Stilt + 4" floor structure in Chaitanyapuri despite having permission for only a "Stilt + 2" residential building. It was further contended that the builder had combined two permits to create a single massive structure, violating mandatory setbacks and permission limits.

The primary question before the court was whether the municipal authorities were bound to dispose of citizen representations regarding unauthorized constructions in a time-bound manner. The court also examined the statutory framework governing the inspection and demolition of illegal structures under the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TGbPASS) Act, 2020, and the GHMC Act, 1955.

Statutory Duty To Encourage Informers Under TGbPASS Act

The Court highlighted Section 7(6) of the TGbPASS Act, 2020, which explicitly encourages citizens to bring unauthorized constructions to the notice of the Municipality and District Collector. The bench noted that the statute mandates a week-long window for authorities to examine such complaints and initiate appropriate action while maintaining the confidentiality of the informer.

The bench observed that the law incentivizes the reporting of violations, yet authorities often fail to initiate action until a writ petition is filed. The Court remarked that this legislative provision was designed to ensure that the "identity of such informers shall be kept confidential" and that "all such cases shall be examined within a week from such information."

Provisions Of The GHMC Act For Inspection and Demolition

Justice Kumar referred to a catena of provisions under the GHMC Act, 1955, including Sections 428, 433, 451, and 452, which empower the Commissioner to inspect buildings and issue demolition orders for unlawful works. The Court underscored that under Section 452, the Commissioner is satisfied that if construction is carried out contrary to building rules, a provisional order must be made requiring the person to demolish the unauthorized portion.

Authorities Vested With Statutory Powers To Inspect And Act

The Court noted that under Section 461-A and Section 636 of the GHMC Act, the Commissioner possesses the power to seal unauthorized premises and require the removal of works done without written permission. The bench lamented that despite these vast powers, officers of regulatory bodies often "turn a blind eye" due to extraneous reasons or the influence of higher functionaries.

Judicial Warnings On Planned Development And Urban Chaos

Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Shanti Sports Club and Ors. Vs. Union of India, the High Court reiterated that violators of Town Planning Schemes cannot be granted any relief. The bench observed that illegal constructions put an unbearable burden on public facilities like water, electricity, and sewerage, eventually creating "chaos on the roads" and environmental pollution that affects the health of citizens.

The Court further cited the Esha Ekta Apartments case to emphasize that Constitutional Courts should not exercise equitable jurisdiction to regularize constructions made in blatant violation of sanctioned plans. The bench remarked that "no authority administering municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan," as it destroys the very concept of planned development.

Compliance With Guidelines In The 'Bulldozer Case'

The Court also took note of the directions and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022 (popularly known as the Bulldozer’s Case). It emphasized that while the authorities must take "appropriate action strictly in accordance with law" against illegalities, they must also ensure that the due process, including the issuance of statutory notices, is strictly followed before any coercive demolition takes place.

Final Directions For Time-Bound Disposal

Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court directed the Respondent No.3 (GHMC) to consider the petitioner’s representation within a period of four weeks. The Court ordered the authorities to put the private builder on notice and provide a fair opportunity for a personal hearing to both parties. The bench clarified that if the allegations of illegal construction are found to be true upon verification of the sanctioned plan, the authorities must take immediate action.

The Court concluded by stating that the respondent authorities must pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and communicate the same to the petitioner. Justice Kumar also clarified that the private respondent, if aggrieved, remains at liberty to seek a modification of this order in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 01 May 2026