The Telangana High Court has questioned the functioning of the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) over the demolition of a compound wall at Vani Cooperative Housing Society in Malkajgiri, asking whether the agency was “Running a parallel government” by carrying out demolitions without proper verification and authority.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar made the observations on Wednesday, August 12, while hearing a petition filed by landowners challenging the demolition of structures on their property. The developments were reported on August 13.
The High Court also initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath and directed the Registry to issue a contempt notice to him.
Dispute Over Compound Wall Demolition
- The case relates to plots in Survey Nos. 194/1 and 211 at Vani Cooperative Housing Society in the Medchal-Malkajgiri district.
- The petitioners, including P. Linga Rao and six others, challenged the demolition of compound walls around their plots. They alleged that the structures were demolished by HYDRAA on July 18, 2026, without prior notice.
- The petitioners also contended that the action was taken despite earlier High Court orders protecting their possession of the property.
Revenue Officials Say They Did Not Authorise Demolition
- During the hearing, the Medchal-Malkajgiri Collector and concerned revenue officials appeared before the court with records.
- They told the court that they had not issued any letter, direction or permission authorising HYDRAA to carry out the demolition.
- The court then questioned under whose authority the demolition had been conducted and how HYDRAA had determined that the disputed property was government land.
Court Questions HYDRAA’s Authority
- The High Court expressed serious concern over demolitions being carried out without proper verification and supporting records.
- Justice Shravan Kumar questioned whether officials were effectively “Running a parallel government” and criticised the practice of carrying out demolitions first and subsequently appearing before courts to explain the action.
- The court also questioned how HYDRAA concluded that the land belonged to the government when government survey officials had apparently not participated in the exercise.
Earlier Court Orders Under Scrutiny
- The court noted that there were earlier proceedings and orders concerning the disputed property dating back to 2022.
- According to the court proceedings, orders protecting the petitioners possession were still in force. The court questioned how demolition and fencing could have taken place despite those orders.
- The court observed that the circumstances appeared, prima facie, to raise a contempt issue and therefore initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the HYDRAA Commissioner.
Government’s Position on the Land
- During the hearing, Government Pleader Katram Muralidhar Reddy submitted that Survey No. 194 covered around 12 acres of patta land, of which approximately four acres had allegedly vested in the government under urban land ceiling laws.
- However, the court questioned whether the required notices had been served on the affected landowners and examined the basis on which the demolition was carried out.
HYDRAA’s Demolition Activities Examined
- HYDRAA informed the court that around 30 to 40 demolitions had been carried out in the Malkajgiri area.
- The High Court directed the Medchal-Malkajgiri Collector to submit a detailed report covering the demolitions, relevant court orders and permissions connected with the actions.
- The court also questioned why HYDRAA had not filed its response in the contempt proceedings.
Contempt Proceedings Against HYDRAA Commissioner
- The High Court directed its Registry to issue notice to HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath in the suo motu contempt proceedings.
- The proceedings will give HYDRAA an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the demolition and the authority under which the action was taken.
- The court’s observations and initiation of contempt proceedings should not be treated as a final finding of guilt. The legal proceedings are continuing.
Why the Case Matters
- The case is significant because HYDRAA has been involved in several enforcement actions relating to alleged encroachments and protection of public assets in Hyderabad and surrounding areas.
- The latest proceedings highlight the importance of verifying land records, following due process and respecting existing court orders before carrying out demolition or other enforcement action.
- The case could also have wider implications for future HYDRAA operations, particularly where ownership is disputed or court proceedings concerning the property are already pending.
Key Takeaway
The Telangana High Court has questioned HYDRAA over the demolition of a compound wall at a housing society in Malkajgiri and asked whether the agency was “Running a parallel government” The court has also initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath after revenue officials said they had not authorised the demolition.
The court has sought further records and explanations before deciding the matter.
