Subscribe

Areas of law › Environment & Public Services

Electricity & Utilities

2 judgments

Telangana HC orders unsealing of sanctioned floors, directs civic body to consider regularisation plea on Rs 3 lakh costs

The question: Whether the petitioner can seek consideration of regularisation of unauthorised floors after a show-cause notice and sealing of the building

The Telangana High Court, Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy, disposed of a writ petition against a municipal show-cause notice by directing the Cyberabad Municipal Corporation authorities to unseal the sanctioned stilt plus two upper floors of a building, while keeping the unauthorised third, fourth and fifth floors sealed. The petitioner was directed to apply for regularisation within ten days, and the authorities to decide it within four weeks, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.3,00,000. The petitioner, a businessman, challenged show-cause notice dated 22.08.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.45, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation. The notice stated that he had constructed a building on Plot No.26 (Western Part) at Krishna Reddy Enclave, Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The sanctioned plan was for stilt plus two upper floors, but he had built additional third and fourth floors and centring for the fifth floor. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought to declare the notice illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, and to have his representation for regularisation considered. An interim application sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with the construction. The State of Telangana (Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department), the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Deputy Commissioner were the respondents. The Court heard the petitioner's senior counsel and the standing counsel for the Cyberabad Municipal Corporation.

Disposed of WP/30958/2026
AP High Court ·1 Oct 2026 ·Constitutional

Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds 2021 Act merging Gram Panchayats into Municipalities and Corporations by legislation

The question: Whether the Amendment Act is within the legislative competence of the State and consistent with Articles 14, 243P and 243Q and the 73rd and 74th Amendments

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a Division Bench judgment of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 5 of 2021). The Court held that the Act, which places named Gram Panchayat areas inside Municipalities and Municipal Corporations by way of Schedules, is within the legislative competence of the State and is not contrary to Articles 14, 243P or 243Q of the Constitution. The Act, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 09.06.2021, amended the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994. It inserted Section 3(1-B) and new Schedules X and XI in the 1965 Act, and Section 3(3-A) with a Schedule in the 1994 Act. The listed areas stand included in the named Municipality or Corporation where no elected body of the Gram Panchayat is in existence, and all consequences of inclusion, including de-notification under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, are deemed completed. The writ petitions concerned Gram Panchayats in Ponnur, Srikakulam, Tadepalligudem, Rajamahendravaram, Palakole, Kandukur, Rajam, Bheemavaram, Gudur, Bhimavaram and Gudivada, along with a general challenge to the Act (W.P. No. 27885 of 2026). The challenge arose after the learned Single Bench allowed W.P. No. 3337 of 2020 on 06.03.2020, setting aside the merger of Chintalapudi and five other villages into Ponnur Municipality for want of the notice and notification required by law. Thereafter Ordinance No.17 of 2020, dated 31.12.2020 was issued, and subsequently the Amendment Act was enacted. Earlier petitions against the Ordinance (W.P. No. 5556 of 2021 and batch) were disposed of on 06.08.2021 with liberty to challenge the Act.

Dismissed WP/27097/2021