HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Monday strongly criticised the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency for fencing private land claiming it to be government property, and questioned whether the agency was following the Supreme Court’s ruling against ‘bulldozer justice’.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar, hearing a writ petition filed by NRI businessman Prasad N Tanjerla, asked counsel for HYDRAA whether the agency would follow the principles of natural justice laid down by the Supreme Court. “Doesn’t HYDRAA want to follow the principles of natural justice set out in the bulldozer judgment?” the judge asked.
The petitioner alleged that HYDRAA officials demolished a shed on his 1,351 sq yard land at Gudimalkapur and later fenced it, claiming it was government land. He said this was done despite civil court decrees in 2000 and 2003 and another judgment delivered in November 2025.
Taking serious note, the judge directed HYDRAA to remove the fencing. At the same time, the petitioner was told not to make any changes to the land until further orders. The court also observed that fencing land without proper verification and documents amounts to misuse of power and may even amount to contempt of court. The judge questioned how HYDRAA decides whether land belongs to the government, is under dispute or is pending before a court.
He noted that many people invest their lifetime savings in property and said the agency must first confirm through official records whether the land is government land or part of any prohibited list before taking action.
The court also referred to allegations that HYDRAA officials confiscated mobile phones during an interaction at their office and asked why citizens were being harassed.
HYDRAA denied the allegations and said a detailed counter-affidavit would be filed. He requested the court not to draw conclusions without hearing the agency’s version.
However, the judge said that unless HYDRAA has proper documents and complete records of government lands, it should not fence properties and must remove the existing fencing. The court added that if land is found to be encroached upon after proper examination, it would not hesitate to allow the agency to secure it.
The case has been posted to March 3 for further hearing.