HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Thursday warned HYDRAA that all its activities — except those related to water bodies and nalas — may be halted if it continues to operate without proper procedure.
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Sandhya Group, which challenged the demolition of its structures at FCI Layout, Gachibowli, on November 17. The judge questioned HYDRAA’s transparency and lack of clear procedures.
“Please formalise your actions, otherwise it will be difficult. I’ll have to stall all actions of HYDRAA except for water bodies and nalas, because nobody knows what you are doing,” the judge said.
As an interim order, the court directed HYDRAA and the Sandhya Group not to enter the disputed layout for 15 days. Individual plot owners may access their plots.
Additional Advocate General Mohd Imran Khan, appearing for HYDRAA, said the demolition began after issuing several notices and was limited to clearing road encroachments.
The judge questioned the early-morning timing and said the notices lacked clarity on road details, boundaries and measurements.
Judge flags lack of SOPs and clarity
Justice Reddy said HYDRAA appeared to function without structure, authority or defined powers. “Nobody is clear on what HYDRAA has to do and on what basis it is acting. Even government counsels are not aware. Every case they come with a new provision, new argument,” he observed.
He said HYDRAA’s scope, powers and its compliance with the GHMC Act require deeper scrutiny and asked the AAG to advise the agency to streamline its work.
The court also ordered the Sandhya Group not to continue any construction for 15 days and directed HYDRAA officials not to visit the site. Both parties were asked to file the FCI Layout plan. The court said the chief secretary is not a necessary party to the contempt petition.
Authorities told to act as per law in encroachment dispute
Hyderabad: Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition by Pullagurla Laxma Reddy, directing officials to follow due process before removing any alleged encroachments on the disputed land.
The petitioner said Jinnaram mandal and Bollaram Municipality staff interfered with his 1,452 sq. yards in Sy. No. 135 without notice, despite a 2023 gift deed and a shed, wall and trees he had added. The government argued he produced no deed and was encroaching. The court ordered that proper notices must be issued before any action