Subscribe
Days after directing the removal of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) Commissioner AV Ranganath in a contempt case, the Telangana High Court on Thursday, July 30, came down heavily on the agency's demolition practices, questioning whether it was functioning as a "parallel executive system" and observing that government authorities were misleading the courts.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Kondapur resident Pemmasani Sudha Rani, who challenged the demolition of her compound wall and a watchman's room by HYDRAA and Revenue officials, alleging that the action was taken without prior notice or due process despite an earlier High Court order permitting her to construct the compound wall.
Referring to the functioning of HYDRAA, Justice Shravan Kumar reportedly said, "Is HYDRAA running a parallel executive system or government?" He further observed, "You (HYDRAA) do whatever you want, demolish without following the procedure, you don't respect the court orders," adding, "You cannot talk about the Institutions. What are the courts meant for...?"
The Court also noted that there was "no coordination" between HYDRAA and the Revenue Department. Quoting from the proceedings, The Hindu reported the judge as observing that the authorities were "misleading and misdirecting themselves, thereby bypassing the orders passed by this court," resulting in prejudice to the petitioner.
The Court found prima facie inconsistencies in HYDRAA's justification for the demolition. While the agency claimed it had acted on the instructions of the Serilingampally Tahsildar, the Tahsildar, who appeared before the Court, stated that neither he nor his office had issued any communication directing HYDRAA to demolish the structures.
Government counsel further informed the Court that the only official communication concerned the protection of government land in Survey No. 59, with a copy merely marked to the HYDRAA Commissioner. The petitioner's property, however, was located in Survey No. 60, which is private land. "There is no appropriate explanation from the respondents on this aspect," Justice Shravan Kumar observed.
The Bench said the records pointed to an "utter failure of effective administration" and reiterated that the Revenue Department and HYDRAA had failed to coordinate with each other while carrying out the demolition.
Justice Shravan Kumar also held that even if the land had been government property, the authorities were bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, including issuing notice and providing reasonable time to the alleged encroachers before undertaking demolition.
Questioning the State government's handling of the matter, the Court observed that different departments appeared to be acting independently without following the law or exercising due diligence.
The Court directed the respondents to file detailed counter affidavits within a week and ordered the Serilingampally Tahsildar to remain present during all subsequent hearings. The matter has been posted to August 6.
