Published Jul 31, 2026 | 7:26 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 31, 2026 | 7:26 PM
The Telangana High Court. (Official website)
Synopsis: The Telangana High Court, in its 27 July order directing the removal of HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath, found that the agency had wilfully breached an undertaking given before the court, repeatedly acted beyond its statutory role, “completely misconceived its role”, and attempted to justify its conduct through shifting explanations. It also dismissed the Commissioner’s apology as insincere and lacking “genuine remorse”.
The Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) and its Commissioner, AV Ranganath, not only ignored binding court orders and violated an undertaking given before the Telangana High Court, but also sought to justify their actions through shifting explanations, the court said in its 27 July order directing the State government to remove Ranganath from his post.
The order came in a batch of contempt cases filed by a private company after HYDRAA officials entered a 40-acre property in Lothkunta despite an undertaking recorded by the High Court on 10 June that its officers would not enter the land.
The court found that HYDRAA’s actions amounted to “wilful, deliberate, intentional disobedience” of its orders and a breach of the undertaking given before it. It held that the agency entered the petitioner’s property without notice and failed to place any record before the court to support its claim that it was assisting the Revenue Department in a demarcation exercise.
The court also held that Ranganath’s apology was not tendered voluntarily but only after it expressed displeasure over his first affidavit, and was therefore “shorn of penitence”.
The order held that HYDRAA had “completely misconceived its role”, observing that it was created to protect lakes, parks, and government lands from encroachments, not to adjudicate land disputes or assume the functions of revenue authorities or civil courts.
The court’s principal finding was that HYDRAA had knowingly breached both its orders and an undertaking given before it.
Earlier this year, HYDRAA entered the Lothkunta property after receiving a complaint from an organisation calling itself “Save The Rocks”. That led to a second round of contempt proceedings, during which HYDRAA’s standing counsel, on instructions, assured the court that its officers “would henceforth not venture into the property of petitioner”.
Recording the undertaking on 10 June, the court directed that HYDRAA personnel “shall not step into the property of the petitioner” and “shall restrain and not interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment” of the land. The court said it had taken a lenient view and closed the contempt proceedings only because of that undertaking.
The undertaking lasted barely five weeks. On 17 and 18 July, the Commissioner, HYDRAA officials, police personnel, and machinery entered the property. The court found that temporary structures were demolished and fencing work was attempted on the ground that the land required protection.
The Commissioner contended that HYDRAA had merely assisted the Revenue Department in demarcating government land. The court rejected the explanation, noting that no notice had been issued to the petitioner, no proceedings authorising the exercise had been produced, and no document had been placed on record to show that the Revenue Department had requisitioned HYDRAA’s services.
“When this Court queried the Revenue Divisional Officer (who was present online) and the Mandal Revenue Officer present in Court as to whether any notice had been issued to the petitioner, it was informed that no such notice had been issued,” the order states.
“It defies the logic of this Court as to how and for what purpose the Revenue Department roped in the services of HYDRAA when the property was declared to belong to the petitioner by the competent courts. It is a settled principle that authorities must issue notice to the respective parties if they intend to undertake any demarcation work. No such notice was issued, and nothing was placed on record.”
The court held that it was evident from the above-mentioned facts “that the respondent/contemnor has wilfully violated the undertaking given and has entered into the property of petitioner, in spite of this Court’s directions not to step into the property.”
It held that the Commissioner’s conduct amounted to “wilful, deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given”.
Also Read: If HYDRAA has done nothing wrong, why fault the courts?
The order is scathing of HYDRAA’s functioning, holding that the agency had “completely misconceived its role” and repeatedly acted beyond the limits of its statutory mandate.
The court rejected HYDRAA’s contention that it could act independently because it was not a party to the earlier litigation. It held that every department of the State is a limb of the same government and that assurances given by the State before a court bind all its departments unless there is a legally sustainable ground to act otherwise.
Drawing on Greek mythology, the judge compared the agency to the many-headed Hydra.
“It is an apt case to refer to the story of Greek mythology, where a serpentine water monster by the name of ‘Hydra’, a symbol of resilience and regeneration, posed challenges that seemed insurmountable to any who tried to conquer it. This Hydra of Greek mythology is traditionally depicted as a gargantuan serpent with numerous heads. The distinctive and daunting trait of its remarkable regenerative ability made the Hydra (of Greek mythology) nearly invincible to those who attempted to conquer it, but it was ultimately slain,” the order reads.
The order adds:
“I hope HYDRAA, i.e., Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (for short, ‘the HYDRAA’), is not under the same impression that it is invincible.”
The court said permitting the agency to overpower citizens “by not adhering to Rule of Law” would “sound a death knell to Rule of Law.”
The judge described HYDRAA’s objective of protecting public assets as “laudable”, but cautioned that “any overreach by the authorities in a zeal to protect the public assets would only have an impact on its functioning.”
The court found that HYDRAA had entered private property without notice despite repeated judicial findings recognising the petitioner’s rights over the land. It also questioned why an agency constituted to protect public assets had been drawn into a revenue demarcation exercise without any supporting record.
The order was equally critical of what it described as HYDRAA’s institutional mindset.
“It is apparent that the officers of HYDRAA are under the notion that they are a class apart. I am afraid they are not, and they cannot be. They are a part of governance and remain so. They are not super cops of governance (in their field); they cannot act beyond the purview of law.”
The court said the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary each had a constitutional duty to preserve the rule of law, adding that the arbitrary exercise of executive power affects every citizen.
“Power vested in the executive in the sphere of administration is very vital. It is most dangerous when such power is used in an arbitrary and illegal manner, as it affects the entire citizenry of the State,” the order reads.
Also Read: BRS hits back at Telangana CM Revanth’s ‘criminal waste’ remark on engineering graduates
The court found that Commissioner AV Ranganath’s apology was prompted by its criticism rather than genuine remorse.
In his first affidavit, filed on 23 July, Mr Ranganath denied the allegations and asserted that HYDRAA had neither entered nor interfered with the petitioner’s land. He did not tender an apology. Two days later, after the court expressed its displeasure, he filed a second affidavit offering a “sincere apology” while continuing to deny the allegations.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in C. Elumalai v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj, Justice Jukanti reiterated that an apology must be offered “at the earliest opportunity and in good grace”. If tendered only after a contemnor realises that punishment is likely, the Supreme Court held, “it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.”
The High Court held that the Commissioner’s apology fell within that principle.
“When this Court expressed its displeasure that no apology was tendered in the first affidavit filed on 23.07.2026, the contemnor tendered an apology in the second affidavit filed on 25.07.2026. Respondent/contemnor’s act of tendering an apology is the outcome of the Court’s observation. The apology tendered is not on his own volition. Such an apology apparently ceases to be in good grace; it is shorn of penitence and hence, the apology tendered stands rejected,” the order reads.
The court also found that the affidavits did not specifically deny the demolition of temporary structures or rebut the allegation that the petitioner had been detained and an FIR registered.
“On an analysis of the material available on record, the proceedings before this Court, the submissions made by counsel, and the contents of the affidavits filed by the respondent/contemnor, it emerges that the staff of HYDRAA, along with men, machinery, and police personnel, entered the petitioner’s property and demolished existing temporary structures raised by the petitioner on the premise that the land was government land that needed to be fenced and protected,” the order reads.
The court also noted that HYDRAA had produced no record to support its claim that it was acting at the Revenue Department’s request.
“No document is placed on record to demonstrate that a request emanated from the office of the concerned Revenue Department for the alleged fencing activity to be taken up at the behest of the Revenue Department. There is nothing to suggest that notice was issued to the petitioner; no notice was issued to the petitioner by any of the authorities.
“There is no specific denial of these facts, nor is there any rebuttal in the affidavits filed. The detention of the petitioner and the registration of an F.I.R. are also not denied.”
The omissions, the court said, reinforced its finding that the Commissioner had committed contempt.
“Courts cannot turn a blind eye to the acts of authorities who flagrantly violate Court orders under one guise or another for reasons best known to them. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the acts of the respondent/contemnor constitute ‘willful, deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given’,” the order reads.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
