HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has held the Commissioner of the Hyderabad Disaster Management and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) guilty of wilful contempt for violating its status quo order on a disputed land parcel in Bagh Amberpet.
A division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao directed HYDRAA to remove all structures, boards and signages indicating its control over the land within four weeks from March 23, and to file a compliance affidavit by April 27.
The contempt petition, filed by A Sudhakar Reddy, alleged violation of the court’s June 12, 2025 order in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal concerning about seven acres in Survey No 563/1. Despite directions to maintain status quo, HYDRAA carried out extensive alterations.
Photographs showed that between June and December 2025, the site was transformed from a muddy terrain into a developed space with culverts, borewells, play equipment, a vertical garden, an entrance gate and an inauguration plaque titled Bathukamma Kunta.
The court observed that the works went beyond permitted anti-flooding measures and continued even after contempt notices were issued. Holding the actions as deliberate disobedience, the bench directed restoration of the site by removing all installations linked to HYDRAA, subject to the final outcome of the appeal.
‘YOUR ARE NOT ABOVE LAW, FOLLOW DUE LEGAL PROCESS’
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has held that the HYDRAA Commissioner is not above the law and that all actions must strictly follow due legal process. Justice NV Shravan Kumar made the observation while hearing a writ petition filed by Purnima, a resident of Musarambagh, alleging illegal takeover of her 650-square-yard plot in Survey Nos 132 and 133 at Sahebnagar Kalan in Hayathnagar mandal of Ranga Reddy district.
During the hearing on Monday, the court faulted HYDRAA for allegedly taking over the land in disregard of its earlier directions and warned of serious consequences for such actions. The court clarified that, as per the GO establishing HYDRAA, any action must be taken only under the supervision and guidelines of the principal secretary of the MAUD department. It also observed that interference in matters pending before courts cannot be tolerated, adding that protection of disputed lands falls within the judiciary’s domain and not HYDRAA’s mandate.
Noting that a large number of petitions involving HYDRAA are pending, the court expressed concern over the authority’s failure to follow legal procedures in several cases. The court directed HYDRAA’s standing counsel to obtain complete details in the present case and adjourned the matter to Tuesday for further hearing.