Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court came down heavily on municipal officials for allowing unauthorised constructions to rise unchecked, remarking that “even God cannot set them right.” Justice B. Vijayasen Reddy made the observation while hearing a petition filed by K. Raghuveer Achari, a resident of Guttala Begumpet in Serilingampally mandal, who challenged a demolition notice issued by the deputy commissioner of Chandanagar Circle under Section 462 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
The court noted that despite multi-storey illegal structures coming up in full public view, municipal officials failed to act during construction. “Only after the buildings are completed, they suddenly remember their duties and start rushing to demolish them,” the judge remarked.
Questioning the counsel representing municipal authorities, the court asked, “What do the municipal officials do for months while construction is underway? Do the area inspectors simply turn a blind eye?” The court pointed out that Section 461 of the GHMC Act empowers officials to seize illegal constructions during the early stages and questioned how many such actions have been taken so far.
Justice Reddy criticised the practice where officials act only after a court petition is filed. “By the time speaking orders are issued, the illegal construction is built and officials start their demolition drama,” he observed.
Raising concern over the growing number of unauthorised buildings across the state, the court held municipal officials responsible. “What’s strange is that these buildings are invisible during construction but become visible for tax collection purposes,” the judge remarked.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the demolition notice was illegal and in violation of existing regulations. He urged the court to stay any action until a decision is made on the petitioner’s application for regularisation under the Building Regularisation Scheme (BRS).
After reviewing the arguments and documents, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained until a decision is taken on the BRS application. The court directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and adjourned the matter to July 15.
