Telangana HC orders action on illegal temple arch in Tarnaka, says violators must pay demolition costs

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has made it clear that recovery of demolition expenses from people behind illegal constructions is mandatory, while directing GHMC to act against an unauthorised temple arch encroaching on a public road in Tarnaka.

Illegal construction on public road under scrutiny

The order came in a writ petition filed by Dachepally Chandrababu, who complained about an illegal arch constructed by Sri Durga Pochamma Devasthanam on a road stretch near Lalguda flyover towards Osmania University.

The petitioner had approached the court after alleging inaction by GHMC despite filing a complaint on March 15 through its mobile app.

‘Violator must pay for demolition expenses’

Justice NV Shravan Kumar observed that if unauthorised construction is confirmed, authorities must not only demolish it but also recover the expenses incurred from the violator.

The court underscored that public funds should not be used for removing illegal structures, reinforcing that cost recovery is a legal obligation of the civic body.

GHMC is directed to decide within 4 weeks

Taking note of submissions by GHMC, which stated that notices had already been issued to the temple authorities, the court directed officials to consider the complaint, hear all parties, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

To ensure effective implementation, the Deputy Commissioner of Circle-43, Tarnaka, was also added as a respondent.

Repeated inaction by civic authorities flagged

The High Court expressed concern that authorities often issue notices but fail to follow through with enforcement unless citizens approach the courts.

It emphasised that laws such as the TG-bPASS Act, 2020, mandate prompt action on complaints related to unauthorised constructions.

Supreme Court's stand reiterated

Referring to multiple Supreme Court rulings, the court reiterated that no leniency should be shown to violators of town planning laws and unauthorised constructions should not be regularised.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Vijay Gopal, while GHMC was arrayed as a respondent in the case.

Relief with legal recourse

While directing action, the court clarified that the temple authorities may seek modification of the order if aggrieved, in accordance with the law.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, along with the closure of pending miscellaneous applications.