HYDERABAD: Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Thursday came down on the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), describing its actions as arbitrary, disregarding the law and terrorising people.
Mincing no words, the judge said: “What is the hurry? HYDRAA cannot change the city overnight. Your officials proceed with demolitions even on weekends without proper inquiries. In one case, a compound wall was demolished at 4 am. Who acts in such a manner? Only dacoits do this. People are panicking because of your actions. Why are you not giving minimum time? Without cancellation orders or properly conducting inquiries, you proceed with demolitions.”
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Alagari Praveen in Patancheru mandal of Sangareddy, alleging that HYDRAA unlawfully entered his land and demolished a tin shed during a weekend, without considering his explanation. Praveen sought a directive to prevent further interference with his property.
Will stay GO99 if razing continues, warns judge
Praveen claimed ownership of the disputed land through a registered sale deed and a conversion approval from the tahsildar dated July 5, 2023. He also obtained building permission from the Muthangi gram panchayat on November 15, 2023. However, the Gayathri Members Association alleged that he was constructing on land designated for a park. A court order dated December 12, 2024, directed the Tellapur municipality commissioner to investigate the claims following due process.
Despite this, HYDRAA Inspector Rajasekhar issued a notice on January 4, 2025, seeking documents regarding the property. Praveen submitted his explanation on January 7, but HYDRAA proceeded with the demolition without a hearing.
In court, standing counsel for HYDRAA argued that the panchayat secretary had granted permissions under coercion and later revoked them, urging the court to excuse the oversight.
To this, Justice Lakshman stated: “Every time your officials claim that this is the last incident. If this continues, the court will stay GO 99, which established HYDRAA. We may need to keep a record of HYDRAA’s repeated mistakes.”
The judge also questioned the absence of cancellation orders in court and the lack of action against the panchayat officer. “HYDRAA is acting high-handedly. We are not against protecting water bodies, roads and government lands, but demolitions must follow due process,” he observed.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint lacked a survey number and was improperly signed by the Sarpanch instead of the panchayat secretary. Counsel also pointed out discrepancies in land records, suggesting that excess land had been sold, which led to false allegations against Praveen.
Additionally, the petitioner claimed that HYDRAA pressured the panchayat secretary into issuing a letter against him after the case had been filed. He urged the court to allow construction as per the sanctioned plan.
The court extended interim orders, prohibiting construction until the next hearing. Notices, including personal notices, were issued to respondents, and the matter was adjourned to March 5.