HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday refused to pass an interim order restraining the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection Agency (HYDRAA) from demolishing illegally constructed buildings and encroachments on lakebeds and riverbeds and in catchment areas of water bodies.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by Praja Shanthi Party president KA Paul, who appeared as a party in person.
In his PIL, Paul urged the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao to order a halt to all demolition activity by HYDRAA for at least 10 days, “particularly in the Musi river region”. He alleged that HYDRAA was targeting the homes of poor people in and around the Musi River without prior notice, while wealthy individuals who had built houses on full tank level (FTL) lands received notices and had access to legal representation.
Paul also claimed that 462 buildings had been demolished across Hyderabad in recent months and sought a court directive to stop further razing until proper surveys were conducted, and owners given adequate notice. He accused HYDRAA of discrimination, alleging that the houses of poor people were being demolished without notice, unlike the homes of influential persons.
After hearing Paul’s arguments for over 30 minutes, Chief Justice Aradhe remarked that while the court was obligated to listen to the petitioner, it was the duty of the Additional Advocate General (AAG) and standing counsel for HYDRAA to respond. Chief Justice Aradhe enquired whether the government was adhering to due process by issuing notices to the owners before demolishing their properties.
In response, AAG Imran Khan assured the court that the state government was following the rules. Ravinder Reddy, standing counsel for HYDRAA, clarified that no houses belonging to poor people along the Musi River had been demolished. He informed the court that the Irrigation and Revenue departments had conducted surveys and marked houses within the river’s boundaries. Those whose homes were demolished were offered 2BHK houses as compensation.
The court, while rejecting the request for an interim stay on the demolition drive, cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kusum Lata v. Union of India, stating that courts should not entertain PILs based solely on information from newspaper reports without verifying the facts.
The bench observed that Paul’s PIL was primarily based on such reports.