Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday, July 20, came down heavily on the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), accusing it of repeatedly violating court orders by interfering with private properties despite clear judicial directions to the contrary.
Hearing a contempt petition filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar expressed strong displeasure over HYDRAA’s conduct, observing that the agency’s repeated disregard for court orders reflected a lack of respect for the judiciary.
“The filing of not one or two but three contempt petitions on the same issue shows how little regard you have for court orders. Such arrogance is unacceptable. The victim here is not the petitioner but the court itself. Violating court orders has become a habit for you. We will not tolerate this. Whether it is the government or its officials, everyone must act within the framework of law,” the judge told HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath.
The court acknowledged that efforts to protect lakes, drains and water bodies were commendable but said such actions could not be carried out in violation of judicial orders or by entering private property unlawfully.
Contempt petition challenges HYDRAA’s demolition drive
The contempt petition challenged HYDRAA’s demolition drive carried out on July 17 in a 40-acre property located in Survey Nos. 1 and 2 of Lothukunta village in Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The petitioner alleged that officials demolished a compound wall and damaged structures despite existing court orders restraining such action.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel M. Harish Kumar argued that this was the third contempt petition arising from the same dispute. He further alleged that despite being informed about the court’s orders, HYDRAA officials assaulted the petitioner and later detained him at a police station after registering an FIR.
Expressing anger over the developments, Justice Anil Kumar warned that he could direct the police to produce the HYDRAA Commissioner before the court. The matter was later adjourned to the evening after Commissioner Ranganath agreed to appear at 6.30 pm. Representing HYDRAA, Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy submitted that 119 acres in Survey No. 243 were government land and that the authorities were only acting to protect public property.
He sought additional time to complete a survey and demarcation of the land. The court, however, questioned why the promised land demarcation had not been completed despite earlier assurances by the district collector. Addressing the commissioner directly, the judge remarked that if the government had objections to judicial orders, it had legal remedies available but was duty-bound to comply with them as long as they remained in force.
“How can you enter private land in the name of protecting government property? If you now claim it belongs to the Defence authorities, why were they not made a party to the case? Acting despite Division Bench orders amounts to interference with the judicial process. Such conduct cannot be permitted,” the court observed.
Court criticises police
The court also criticised the police for failing to provide the petitioner with a copy of the FIR and directed the Home Department’s counsel to ensure that the FIR copy was furnished immediately. Officials were instructed to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances, and the hearing was adjourned to Tuesday.
The court premises witnessed heightened activity during the proceedings as Commissioner Ranganath, senior police officers, the Advocate General, Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan and other government lawyers appeared before the bench.
