HYDERABAD: Defending the role of constitutional courts in scrutinising executive action, the Telangana High Court on Thursday rebuked the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), observing that the case before it showed it was government agencies, not private litigants, that were misleading the judiciary.
Responding to recent public criticism of judicial orders against HYDRAA, Justice NV Shravan Kumar said constitutional courts cannot be faulted for intervening when authorities act in violation of law and court directions.
“This case itself answers the recent statements that courts are being misled by private litigants,” the judge observed. “It is the authorities and agencies such as HYDRAA that are misleading, misdirecting and bypassing court orders.”
The court said the episode reflected a breakdown of administrative coordination, with government departments acting independently without due diligence, legal scrutiny or adherence to statutory procedure.
The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Pemmasani Sudha Rani alleging that Revenue officials and HYDRAA illegally demolished a compound wall and a watchman’s room on her 350-square-yard property in Survey No. 60 of Kondapur village in Serilingampally mandal without issuing notice or following due process. The petitioner contended that despite an earlier high court order permitting construction of the compound wall, HYDRAA officials entered the property on October 4, 2025, demolished the structures and attempted to dispossess her.
At the previous hearing on July 28, HYDRAA informed the court that the demolition had been carried out on the instructions of the Serilingampally tahsildar, prompting the court to direct the officer to appear in person.
Appearing before the court on Thursday, the tahsildar categorically stated that neither he nor his office had issued any communication directing HYDRAA to demolish structures on the petitioner’s land.
Government Pleader for Revenue Katram Muralidhar Reddy informed the court that the district collector’s office had only sought police protection for the removal of temporary structures on the government land in Survey No. 59 and had merely marked a copy of the communication to HYDRAA. The petitioner’s property, however, is in Survey No. 60, which revenue records identify as private land. The court questioned how HYDRAA concluded that the petitioner’s land formed part of Survey No. 59 and whether it had conducted any verification, survey or examination of revenue records before the demolition.
Although HYDRAA’s counsel relied on an October 1 communication from the tahsildar, the court repeatedly asked whether the district collector had specifically authorised demolition of the petitioner’s property and why no notice had been served before the action was taken.
“Is HYDRAA running a parallel executive system or the government?” the judge asked.
Justice Shravan Kumar observed that even if the land were government property, authorities were legally bound to issue notice and provide a reasonable opportunity before initiating eviction proceedings. He questioned the urgency behind the demolition and asked why proceedings under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act had not been initiated, particularly when the High Court had earlier directed the authorities to follow due process.
Referring to the recent contempt proceedings involving M/s Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Justice Shravan Kumar said he agreed with the findings of the coordinate bench headed by Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti which had criticised HYDRAA for allegedly interfering with private property despite subsisting status quo orders.
The judge said the present case reflected a recurring pattern of the agency ignoring statutory safeguards and judicial directions.
“You demolish structures without following procedure. You do not verify records, conduct proper surveys or respect court orders. That is precisely why constitutional courts are required to intervene to protect the rights of affected citizens,” the court remarked.
Without expressly referring to recent public statements made in the wake of judicial orders against HYDRAA, Justice Shravan Kumar said the present case clearly showed “who is misleading whom” and rejected any suggestion that courts were being misled by litigants.
“You cannot talk about the institutions. If violations occur, courts will step in. What else are the courts meant for?” the judge observed.
The court directed all respondents to file detailed counter-affidavits within one week. It also ordered the tahsildar to remain present on every date of hearing until the writ petition is finally disposed of.
