HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has come down heavily on HYDRAA, questioning its approach to dealing with encroachments.
The court faulted the agency for seemingly targeting only the poor and middle-class while turning a blind eye to illegal constructions by the affluent, political leaders and other influential people.
The bench remarked that HYDRAA should ensure uniform implementation of the law and examine whether regulations were followed in the construction of structures belonging to prominent individuals as well.
The court questioned HYDRAA’s selective enforcement, pointing out that while the houses of the poor and middle class were demolished with their images displayed in the media, similar actions were not seen against encroachments by the affluent. The court further inquired about the fate of government lands occupied by influential individuals in various locations, including Miyapur and Durgam Cheruvu.
The bench stressed that public interest would be truly protected only if justice was served equally to all.
Referring to the degradation of water bodies in Hyderabad, the court noted that the city, once home to over 2,000 lakes, now has less than 200. It stressed that earlier, special laws were in place to protect these water bodies.
Despite the establishment of HYDRAA, its performance has been unconvincing. The court asserted that real effectiveness could be achieved only when illegal structures of both the underprivileged and the wealthy were demolished without bias.
It also remarked that the measures taken by the Nizams to protect water bodies were more effective than those implemented by the current government.
In a related case, the high court heard a petition filed by Fatima and another individual challenging the notices issued by the tahsildar concerning six acres of land in Attapur’s survey numbers 329/1, 329/2, and 329/3 of Rajendranagar mandal, Rangareddy district.
Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy took up the matter on Wednesday, and the petitioners’ counsel argued that the tahsildar’s action, based on the Waqf Board CEO’s letter, was invalid. The lawyer contended that even if the land belonged to the Waqf Board, only the CEO had the authority to take action, not the tahsildar, and thus, the notices should be revoked.
In response, the government’s counsel defended the removal of encroachments within the Miralam tank area, stating that these actions were taken in public interest under directives from the HC.
