1. This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:-

               “to issue a Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.3 vide proceedings No. 48/UC/CIR-41/TPS/GHMC/2025 dated 20-1-2026 directing to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days, otherwise proceed to demolish the petitioner unauthorized construction rooms running commercial activity Bearing No. 1-8-1/B8/F4 with plinth area 1052 Sq. yards property bearing No. MIG-II, Phase I, Block No. 8,Flat No. 4, Ground Floor , Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of GHMC Act and Rules made there under and also violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same”

2. Facts in brief as stated in this writ petition are that respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Circle - 41, GHMC, Abids, Hyderabad, issued show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 to petitioner, under the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 read with Section 10 of TS-bPASS Act, 2020. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice on 19.01.2026. The said show cause was issued based on a complaint received from respondent No.5 stating that certain unauthorized constructions are being carried out by the petitioner occupying common area and footpath of premises at Pr.No.Flat No.4, Block No.8, MIG-2, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, and directed the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice within fifteen (15) days as to why the unauthorized construction should not be demolished departmentally, failing which action will be taken as per Rules in force. A copy of photograph of the unauthorized constructions on the subject property was also forming part of the said show cause notice. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.2022 of 2026 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.3 to consider the explanation dated 19.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 and pass orders in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.5, and pending enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2025, respondent No.3 was directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. The order was passed without going into the merits, as such notice to respondent No.5 was dispensed with in that writ petition. By that time the respondent No.3 issued impugned notice dated 20.01.2026. The said orders were issued after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 17.01.2026 and 19.01.2026. In the said order, it was stated that based on a complaint received from respondent No.5 stating that the petitioner has illegally constructed shops by occupying common area and footpath of premises at Pr.No.Flat No.4, Block No.8, MIG-2, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. A copy of the photograph of the extent of unauthorized construction which is existing in front of the flats was also been appended in the order dated 20.01.2026. In the impugned orders, it is further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are not correct and does not convey the existing possession on ground, as such, the explanation/reply submitted was rejected, and the petitioner was directed to remove unauthorized constructions within 15 days, failing which the GHMC would proceed to demolish the unauthorized constructions departmentally enforcing recovery of the cost thereof from the petitioner. Questioning the order dated 20.01.2026, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The petitioner submits that there are no unauthorized constructions and no application was filed for renovation of subject premises from the date of purchase and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property from 25.01.2010. The said property was purchased by the petitioner from her vendor who earlier purchased from A.P. Housing Board vide document No.2703 of 2002 dated 25.09.2002. The petitioner further submit that the tenant, who is residing at Flat No.16 filed complaint and basing on the said complaint, without any verification, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice dated 25.12.2025 calling for explanation within 15 days, for which the petitioner has submitted explanation dated 19.01.2026.

4. The petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner’s vendor having purchased the said property, paid house property tax for an amount of Rs.1180/- for the year 2014-15, and after changing the name from petitioner’s vendor to petitioner for the year 2015-2016, the petitioner paid property tax of Rs.1620/-. But for the year 2016-17, the petitioner received tax on the subject premises as commercial cum residential as old building with revised tax and the respondent authorities regularly collected an amount of Rs.10,518/- per year. The petitioner submits that the subject premises has already been converted to commercial cum residential, and she is regularly paying property tax (commercial). The petitioner apprehends that respondent Nos.2 to 4 may demolish the subject premises pursuant to the impugned notice dated 20.01.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not occupied common area and there is no fresh commercial activity and in the said area, and that several shops have been constructed and now the entire area is identified as commercial activity area.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Circle - 41, GHMC, Abids, Hyderabad, issued show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 basing on the complaint of respondent No.5 stating that the petitioner has made unauthorized constructions without obtaining necessary building permissions on the said property and the details of the unauthorized constructions were also stated in the said notice and a photograph to that extent was appended and the same is part of show cause notice and directed the petitioner to stop the work and appear before respondent No.3 office on 19.01.2026 at 4 P.M. for personal hearing to present her case with supporting documents. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC further submits that the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 19.01.2026 stating that there are no unauthorized constructions since the date of purchase of the property and a flimsy complaint was filed by respondent No.5, who is residing in Flat No.7 in the same building. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC further submits that in the said show cause notice, it is also observed that the petitioner is running commercial activity and after examining the explanation and on verification of the GHMC records, respondent No.3 has concluded and passed orders holding that there are certain unauthorized rooms and the petitioner is running commercial activity and that the contentions of the petitioner are not correct and does not convey the existing possession on ground. As such, the explanation/reply was rejected and directed the petitioner to remove unauthorized constructions within 15 days, failing which the GHMC would proceed to demolish the unauthorized constructions departmentally enforcing recovery of the cost thereof from the petitioner.

7. Heard Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC - respondent Nos.2 to 4; and perused the material on record.

8. The show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 and the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 shows that certain constructions/extensions were made in the subject premises. The petitioner’s vendor has purchased the subject property from AP Housing Board vide document dated 25.09.2002. Thereafter the petitioner purchased the said property from her vendor on 25.01.2010, and the subject property is only residential flat situated at ground floor. A perusal of the photographs filed by the petitioner in support of this writ petition shows that there are several commercial shops constructed on the ground floor occupying footpaths. After verifying on ground and after correlating with the records, respondent No.3 observed that there are unauthorized constructions and rejected the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is further noted that even as per the description of the schedule of the subject property in document No.216 of 2010 dated 25.01.2010, the schedule of the property describes as MIG-II, Flat No.4, Block No.8, Ground Floor, Bearing Municipal No.1-8-1/B8/F4, with plinth area of 700 square feet, situated at Baghlingampally, Hyderabad and there was no mention about the existing shop as is evident from the photographs appended/forming part of the impugned order dated 20.01.2026. In view of the discrepancies on the ground reality, it is clear that the petitioner had occupied footpath and constructed/extended a shop and is paying tax. Further on a perusal of photographs filed in support of this writ petition, several shops are existing in front of the apartments in the said locality. It is also stated in the writ affidavit that respondent No.3 collected an amount of Rs.10,516/- as commercial tax, which would mean that the petitioner is paying property tax assessed as commercial property partly as well as residential from time to time. The petitioner has also filed copy of the assessment revision details concerning the subject property and in the building usage before revision, it is shown as residential and after revision it is shown as Mix (Other Hotels, Lodges, Restaurants, Guest Houses, Residential Shops). The nature of the property was revised on 07.06.2016 with effect from 01.04.2016, and before revision the plinth area was shown as 700 square feet and after revision it is shown as 1052 square feet and an unauthorized construction penalty of Rs.2084/- was also imposed after revision. Annual tax for residential portion before revision is Rs.1470/- and after revision it was increased to Rs.10412/-. Similarly the property tax payment receipt for the year 2025-26 was filed in the writ material papers, wherein an amount of Rs.10516/- was paid and the occupation type is shown as commercial.

9. In the assessment revision details, the nature of the building usage is shown as residential shops, other hotels, lodges, restaurants, guest houses and the revision was effected from 01.04.2016. An amount of Rs.10412/- was charged for a plinth area of 1052 square feet showing the building usage as mix. The payments were collected as on 08.07.2025. The respondents even at the time of carrying out assessment revision collected tax assessing the property as residential cum commercial and did not initiate any action unless a complaint was filed by respondent No.5 even after recording discrepancy in the plinth area from the registered sale deed. The respondents knowingly well that the petitioner has extended the usage of the property on the footpaths instead of taking action has assessed and collected tax all the preceding years classifying the extension area as commercial.

10. This Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly directed the civic authorities to keep footpaths free from encroachments and ensure that they are usable for pedestrians. In the case on hand, it is a clear case of encroachment by the petitioner on the footpath which would make the pedestrians force to walk on the busy roads exposing them to risk to life. The photographs filed by the petitioner would show that the footpath area in the locality has been encroached and obstructing public footpath space. The respondent authorities all the preceding years had allowed the encroachments and utterly failed to follow the orders passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors ((2009) 15 SCC 705), held that violators of the Town Planning Scheme cannot be granted any relief. The relevant portion of the order is extracted for reference:

                          “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 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, 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, UdipiMANU/SC/0082/1974 : 1974 (2) SCC 506;Dr. G.N. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority MANU/SC/0064/1996 : 1995 (5) SCC 762;M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu MANU/SC/0999/1999 : 1999 (6) SCC 464; Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa MANU/SC/0933/2004 : 2004 (8) SCC 733;M.C. Mehta v. Union of India MANU/SC/8028/2006 : 2006 (3) SCC 399 andS.N. Chandrasekhar v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/8005/2006 : 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 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)

12. 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 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 and concept of planned development of urban as well as rural areas.”

                          (emphasis supplied)

13. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanizsha Ahmed Vs. Sabuddin and Ors ((2025) SCC Online SC 995), while referring to the recent pronouncement in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024 INSC 990) directed that in the event of any violation brought to the notice of the Courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

                          “ In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions:

                          “(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.

                          (ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.

                          (iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.

                          (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.

                          (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.

                          (vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.

                          (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.

                          (viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co- operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge.

                          (ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

                          (x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law.

                          (xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned.

                          (xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.”

               6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that her client be given one chance to pray for regularisation of the unauthorised construction. We do not find any merit in such submission. A person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees.

               7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well- being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]

14. In the case on hand this Court in W.P.No.2022 of 2026 vide order dated 22.01.2026 without going into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.3 to consider the explanation dated 19.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 and pass orders in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 in the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 considered the reply submitted by the petitioner wherein it is submitted that there is no unauthorized construction which was already constructed in the year 2002 itself and there is no fresh commercial activity which is continuing since 2010 onwards and that the respondents have revised the house property tax as residential-cum-commercial and based on that the petitioner was regularly paying property tax and there is no fresh commencement of the construction work. In the impugned order dated 20.01.2026, it is further stated that the petitioner has not attended personal hearing on the specified date. As observed in the schedule of property purchased by the petitioner on 25.01.2010, the extent is specified as 700 square feet, however in the assessment revision details the plinth area before revision is 700 square feet which is extended to 1050 square feet after revision. Further the petitioner has admitted in Paragraph No.7 of her affidavit that she has already converted the said house from residential and commercial and is also regularly paying property tax (commercial) which has been received by the respondents and the said fact is also known to the respondents very well. The petitioner has categorically admitted that the subject flat has been made into residential and commercial status and already paying property tax being assessed partly as residential and partly as commercial, the petitioner as well as the respondents have blatantly violated the orders passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The inaction on the municipal authorities coupled with the petitioner’s acts amounts to a deliberate and continuing violation of Court orders thereby exposing the pedestrians to serious risk to life and safety.

15. Insofar as the complaint of respondent No.5 is concerned, the provisions of the TS-bPASS Act, 2020, empowers any citizen to make complaint with regard to the unauthorized and illegal constructions. This Court observes that footpaths in several parts of Hyderabad are in dilapidated condition and are extensively encroached upon by unauthorized constructions carrying on commercial activities which would defeat the very purpose of earmarking footpaths which are meant for the pedestrians. Looking at the plight of the footpaths in the city of Hyderabad, today the very existence of footpaths have faded away from the public consciousness resulting the pedestrians being compelled to walk on the main roads thereby exposing themselves to traffic hazards. Further the contention of the petitioner is that she is paying tax on commercial value levied by the respondents does not mean that the respondent authorities have fortified their right to demolish unauthorized constructions.

16. This Court in Arvind L. Abhyankar Vs. Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad (2002(5)ALD763) observed as follows:

               “34. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Builder that the impugned action of the Corporation suffers from the vice of laches and delay also cannot be countenanced. It may be true that the officials of the Corporation-despite conducting several inspections during the course of construction of floors 5 to 10, did not raise any objections, but that does not mean that Corporation has given him a green signal to violate the law. The judgment in second appeal made it clear that insofar as future construction is concerned, the Builder shall not contravene the law and he shall not take advantage of the deemed permission. However, the Builder without obtaining permission from the Corporation and without giving notice to the Commissioner about his intention to make construction, as is required under the Act and the extant Bye-laws, constructed floors 5 to 10. That itself is a clear indication that he had violate the law. The Certificate dated 5-1-1989, said to have been issued by the Commissioner of the Corporation, certifying that the constructions made by the Builder are in accordance with the Bye-laws of 1972, is clouded with suspicion for the reason that the Corporation issued a notice to the Builder on 19-4-1994, calling upon him to explain the genesis of the said certificate, and in that regard, it is stated that the Corporation also initiated criminal action against the Builder. Therefore, the Builder cannot claim that the construction of floors 5 to 10 made by him are in accordance with law. As long as the construction continue to remain illegal and unauthorised, the Corporation has every right to initiate action against the Builder for removal of such illegal and unauthorised construction, and time shall not come in the way of the Corporation to take action for removal of such illegal and unauthorised constructions, and more particularly when the statute itself did not prescribe any time limit for initiating such action. Therefore, the contention of the Builder that the action of the Corporation suffers from the vice of delay and laches, is incorrect and cannot be sustained.”

               (Emphasis supplied)

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Radhey Shyam Sahu And Others (1999 (6) SCC 464) held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorized and further held that the enquiry should be ordered to find out how unauthorized constructions came about . The relevant paragraph Nos.73 and 81 are extracted hereunder:

               “High Court has directed dismantling of the whole project and for restoration of the park to its original condition. This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is now almost bordering rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles. As will be seen in moulding the relief in the present case and allowing one of the blocks meant for parking to stand we have been guided by the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika to construct and maintain parking lots.

               Number of cases coming to this Court pointing to unauthorised constructions taking place at many places in the country by builders in connivance with the Corporation/Municipal officials. In the series of cases, this Court has directed demolition of unauthorised constructions. This does not appear to have any salutary effect in cases of unauthorised construction coming to this Court. While directing demolition of unauthorised construction, court should also direct inquiry as to how the unauthorised construction came about and to bring the offenders to book. It is not enough to direct demolition of unauthorised construction, where there is clear defiance of law. In the present case, but for the observation of the High Court, we would certainly have directed an inquiry to be made as to how the project was conceived and how the agreement dated November 4, 1993 came to be executed.”

18. The civic authorities being aware that footpaths are essential public infrastructure for pedestrians, however are not taking immediate steps and it is striking to note that a major portion of the Hyderabad roads lack proper footpaths. Further the civic authorities initiates drive to remove such encroachments only after Court orders or media outrage and the encroachers thereafter quietly return after few weeks. The encroachment control must be routine and not event-based. The citizens, despite paying municipal taxes are deprived of using the footpaths. Similarly, the vehicle owners despite paying road tax are unable to optimally utilize the roads and the civic authorities have continuously ignored the directions of the Hon’ble Courts in dealing with illegal encroachments which are set as an example of bad governance and due to the lapse of appropriate and timely action, illegality perpetuates.

19. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in the light of the judicial precedents, the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 issued by respondent No.3 warrants no interference. Since the respondent No.3 had already issued final orders dated 20.01.2026 to the petitioner, shall forthwith take further steps strictly in accordance with law. The writ petition is devoid of merits, fails and is accordingly dismissed insofar as the relief sought by the petitioner.

20. However, it is made clear that since the photographs filed in the writ petition also shows that there are several encroachments/shops in the said area and upon recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and that the issue is common and for the purpose of implementation of the earlier orders of this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the entire area is identified as commercial activity area, the above directions will also apply mutatis mutandis to all those persons who have raised unauthorized constructions on the footpath or extensions made to their properties by deviating from the sanctioned building/road plans occupying the footpaths. The respondent authorities are further directed to restore the footpaths to its original condition. Further the respondent No.2 shall cause enquiry on all the erring officers for not complying with the orders of this Court and directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time and shall identify and remove the unauthorized constructions particularly in the said area and on the streets of Hyderabad and ensure that no further encroachments are permitted.

21. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

22. The respondent No.2 is directed to file compliance report before the Registry of this Court within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order stating that the order of this Court and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning illegal encroachments on footpaths have been implemented in their respective zones. Registry is directed to communicate the order to respondent Nos.1 and 2.

23. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.