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

Court: High Court for the State of Telangana
Date of judgment: 1 October 2026
Case: WP/30958/2026
Parties: Kompally Madhusudhan Vs The State of Telangana
Bench: B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Outcome: Disposed of

Summary

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.

The question before the court

Whether the petitioner can seek consideration of regularisation of unauthorised floors after a show-cause notice and sealing of the building
What conditions, including costs, should apply to such consideration

What each side argued

Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 11.09.2026 stating that he was willing to file a regularisation application under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, but that the building was sealed even before the reply was submitted.
Standing counsel for the Cyberabad Municipal Corporation submitted that the building was sealed under the general directions issued by the Court on 29.04.2025 in W.P. No.12889 of 2025, as the petitioner was proceeding with unauthorised construction of the third, fourth and fifth floors.
Standing counsel also pointed out that W.P. No.18424 of 2026 had been disposed of on 17.06.2026 by imposing costs on the petitioner there, and prayed for a similar order imposing reasonable costs here.

The court's decision

The Court recorded the submissions of both sides and disposed of the writ petition in view of them. It did not examine the merits of the notice or the sealing in a detailed ruling. The order notes the petitioner's willingness to seek regularisation, the municipal authorities' reliance on the Court's general directions of 29.04.2025 in W.P. No.12889 of 2025, and the earlier disposal of W.P. No.18424 of 2026 with costs.

The Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to unseal the stilt plus two upper floors of the subject property. It held that the sealing of the unauthorised third, fourth and fifth floors shall continue.

The petitioner was directed to submit an application seeking regularisation of the unauthorised structures on Plot No.26 (Western Part) within ten days from receipt of a copy of the order. On receipt of that application, respondent Nos.2 and 3, as the case may be, are to consider it and pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.3,00,000 with the Cyberabad Municipal Corporation within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Pending consideration of the regularisation application, status quo as obtaining on the date of the order is to be maintained in respect of the structures on the property. Miscellaneous applications, if any, and the writ petition stood closed.

Precedents referred to

W.P. No.12889 of 2025 (order dated 29.04.2025, general directions)
W.P. No.18424 of 2026 (order dated 17.06.2026)

Provisions referred to

Article 226, Constitution of India
Sections 455-A and 455-AA, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court for the State of Telangana. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Writ Jurisdiction Municipal Law Unauthorised Construction

Related judgments

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

Telangana High Court ·18 Sep 2026 ·Anti-Defection ★ Editor's pick Landmark

Telangana HC sets aside Speaker's orders, declares MLA disqualified for contesting Lok Sabha polls on another party's ticket

The question: Was the Speaker's decision vitiated on the grounds of judicial review laid down in Kihoto Hollohan?

The Telangana High Court has set aside the Speaker's decisions in two disqualification petitions and declared that Danam Nagender stands disqualified as a Member of the Telangana Legislative Assembly from 23 April 2024, the date he filed his nomination as the candidate set up by the Indian National Congress (INC) for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Secunderabad, despite having been elected on a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) ticket. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, by a common order in Writ Petition Nos. 8409 and 8647 of 2026, held that the Speaker's contrary findings breached the constitutional mandate and were perverse. The Court declared the seat vacant. Mr. Nagender was elected from the 60-Khairatabad constituency in December 2023. On 23 April 2024 he filed his nomination for the Lok Sabha as an INC candidate, campaigned against the BRS candidate and lost. Disqualification Petition No. 1 of 2024 (Padi Kaushik Reddy) was filed on 18 March 2024, and Disqualification Petition No. 4 of 2024 (Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, a BJP member) on 1 July 2024, both seeking a declaration of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. On 31 July 2025 the Supreme Court directed the Speaker to decide within three months. The Speaker, sitting as a Tribunal, dismissed both petitions on 11 March 2026, and the petitioners came to the High Court.

Allowed WP/8647/2026

Calcutta High Court ·30 Sep 2026 ·Labour Law

Calcutta HC sets aside award applying central minimum wages to contract labour; West Bengal is the appropriate government

The question: Is the Central Government or the State Government the 'appropriate government' for contract labour engaged through contractors at the company's Howrah factory?

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the award of 13 November 2024 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in case no. 39 of 2022, which held that the contractors' employees working for Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. are entitled to minimum wages at the rate fixed by the Central Government. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that, because the workers are engaged through contractors for work carried out within West Bengal, the State Government is the appropriate government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the State Minimum Wages Act therefore applies to them. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited awarded contracts to several contractors through tenders with a condition that minimum rates of wages be paid to the labourers. Bridge and Roof Contractors' Shramik Union raised an industrial dispute for the contract workers at the Howrah factory, demanding Rs 26,000 a month as minimum wages or, in the alternative, the minimum wages notified by the Central Government. On a reference made on 26 August 2022, the Tribunal found nothing on record to show that the minimum rate was Rs 26,000. In its award of 13 November 2024 in Reference No. 39 of 2022, it nevertheless allowed the reference in part, holding that the contractors' employees were entitled to the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government from time to time, and that the company was bound to pay its contractors at that rate for payment to those employees. The company challenged the award in a writ petition.

Dismissed WPA/11917/2025