The judge cautioned that if officials failed to follow due process of law before demolitions he would be compelled to revoke Government Order (GO) 99, under which HYDRAA was created.
Published Feb 21, 2025 | 1:52 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 21, 2025 | 1:52 PM
File photo of the Telangana High Court. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Telangana High Court questioning HYDRAA’s authority to determine land ownership and carry out demolitions. The judge cautioned that if officials failed to follow due process of law before demolitions he would be compelled to shut down the agency.
The Telangana High Court has come down heavily on the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), questioning its authority to determine land ownership and carry out demolitions.
During a hearing on Thursday, 20 February, Justice K Laxman warned of shutting down HYDRAA if it continued acting without following due procedures.
He was hearing arguments on a petition filed by A Praveen, who challenged the demolition of his tin shed in Muthangi village in the Sangareddy district, despite presenting valid land documents.
The judge cautioned that if officials failed to follow due process of law before demolitions he would be compelled to revoke Government Order (GO) 99, under which HYDRAA was created. Comparing HYDRAA’s actions to those of dacoits, he noted that demolitions were being carried out in stealth at night.
Referring to previous incidents, the court recalled a case where officials tore down a boundary wall at 4 am without prior notice. “Only dacoits operate like this! Why demolish properties on holidays without warning? Have you ignored the High Court’s full-bench order?” the judge asked.
The court further questioned HYDRAA’s authority: “Who are you to examine documents and determine ownership rights? What is your jurisdiction? Do you think you can transform Hyderabad overnight?”
The court repeatedly emphasised the need to follow due process under the law, yet you continue to ignore these directives.”
While acknowledging the importance of protecting water bodies, roads, and government land, the court stressed that all actions must comply with legal procedures. It warned that even unauthorized structures must be removed lawfully and questioned how demolitions could be carried out without following due process.
The court also condemned HYDRAA for creating panic by conducting demolitions on holidays and suggested that some actions appeared to be driven by personal vendettas rather than legal grounds. It asked how ownership disputes could be settled merely by reviewing documents, which is a matter for civil courts.
HYDRAA’s counsel argued that Praveen’s construction permissions had been revoked by the Muthangi Gram Panchayat because they were obtained from the panchayat secretary under duress. However, the court was unconvinced, questioning why permission granted in 2023 was suddenly withdrawn in 2025.
The agency further claimed that it acted based on a complaint from the Gayatri Members’ Association, which alleged land encroachment. The court dismissed this argument, asking why the association had not approached the appropriate legal authorities before HYDRAA intervened. “Who gave HYDRAA the right to decide ownership disputes? That is the job of civil courts, not yours!” the judge declared.
Reiterating that only civil courts have the authority to settle land disputes, the court reminded HYDRAA that both the high court and the Supreme Court have upheld this principle.
Although HYDRAA’s counsel assured the court that no future demolitions would occur on holidays, the judge remained sceptical. He pointed out that similar promises had been made before, yet illegal actions continued. The court warned that if such practices persisted, it would consider ordering HYDRAA’s closure.
The court extended interim orders, prohibiting construction until the next hearing and the matter was adjourned to 5 March.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
