The High Court of Telangana has reaffirmed that no structure, regardless of alleged violation, may be demolished without adherence to due process of law. This judgment underscores the constitutional imperative that even regulatory enforcement must respect fundamental rights under Article 21, setting a critical precedent for urban development disputes across India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kilaru Rajeswara Rao, constructed an ACC sheet shed on Plot No. 20 (part) of Sai Aiswarya Residency in Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally, measuring 183 sq.yds. The respondent authorities issued a demolition notice dated 12.01.2026, alleging that the structure was being used for commercial purposes and violated town planning regulations. The petitioner contested this, asserting that the construction was purely residential and undertaken due to financial constraints preventing the use of RCC.
Procedural History
- The demolition notice was issued by the Assistant City Planner, GHMC Circle 20, without prior opportunity for hearing or inspection.
- The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1876 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the notice as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 and Article 300A.
- Simultaneously, an interim application under Section 151 CPC sought suspension of the demolition notice pending final disposal.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration that the demolition notice was illegal, a writ of mandamus to restrain enforcement, and directions to allow construction to proceed in accordance with the sanctioned building permit dated 01.11.2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether authorities can issue and enforce a demolition notice without providing a prior hearing or opportunity to explain, thereby violating Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution, even when the alleged violation pertains to town planning norms.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri M. Rajender Reddy, counsel for the petitioner, argued that:
- The structure was an ACC sheet shed, not a commercial building, and was constructed solely for residential use.
- The demolition notice was issued without any inspection report, site visit, or opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.
- The right to shelter and livelihood under Article 21 cannot be extinguished by summary action.
- The petitioner held a valid building permit dated 01.11.2025, and any deviation, if any, must be addressed through a fair adjudicatory process.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development contended that:
- The structure was non-compliant with the sanctioned plan and potentially used for commercial purposes.
- Municipal authorities have statutory powers under the Telangana Municipalities Act to remove unauthorized constructions.
- Delay in enforcement does not imply waiver of rights, and the notice was issued in public interest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture of the demolition notice and found it fundamentally defective. It emphasized that Article 21 protects not only life but also the right to livelihood and shelter, and that Article 300A mandates that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law - which includes procedural fairness.
"The right to property, though not a fundamental right, is a constitutional right protected under Article 300A, and deprivation of property without due process is impermissible."
The Court rejected the notion that municipal authorities may act unilaterally, even in cases of alleged non-compliance. It held that due process is non-negotiable, regardless of the nature of the structure or the perceived urgency of enforcement. The absence of a show-cause notice, site inspection, or opportunity to submit representations rendered the notice arbitrary and violative of constitutional norms.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had produced a sanctioned building permit, which created a prima facie right to proceed with construction. Any alleged deviation must be adjudicated through a fair procedure, not summary demolition.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that demolition cannot proceed without due process, and directed the respondents to refrain from interfering with construction activities unless following lawful procedure. The petitioner was also directed to strictly adhere to the sanctioned plan and use the structure solely for residential purposes.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Due Process Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must challenge any demolition notice issued without a prior hearing or inspection as violative of Article 21 and Article 300A.
- Municipal authorities cannot rely on statutory powers to bypass procedural safeguards.
- Courts will intervene where enforcement actions are summary, even if the underlying violation appears serious.
Sanctioned Plans Create Prima Facie Rights
- A valid building permit shifts the burden to the authority to prove deviation, not to the owner to prove compliance.
- Allegations of commercial use must be substantiated with evidence - not mere suspicion.
- Construction may proceed pending adjudication if the permit is valid and no court order stays it.
Residential Use Trumps Presumptions of Commercial Activity
- The nature of construction material (e.g., ACC sheet vs. RCC) does not determine use; actual intent and evidence do.
- Petitioners should document financial constraints and residential intent through affidavits, bank records, or utility bills to rebut presumptions.
- Authorities must conduct on-site verification before issuing demolition notices.
