Authorities and HYDRAA Mislead and Bypass Court Orders: HC
The court observed that there was utter failure of the administration by the authorities. Without coordinating with each other, departments were taking decisions on their own and without following law or due diligence and process
Hyderabad: Asserting that constitutional courts should not be attacked for scrutinising executive action, the Telangana High Court on Thursday pointed to a case where HYDRAA had demolished a private compound wall on purported instructions of the revenue authorities, though the records showed that neither the tahsildar nor the district collector had issued any such direction.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar said the case itself answered the recent statements that the judiciary was being misled by private litigants. The court observed that it was the government authorities and agencies like HYDRAA who were misleading and misdirecting the court and bypassing its orders.
The court observed that there was utter failure of the administration by the authorities. Without coordinating with each other, departments were taking decisions on their own and without following law or due diligence and process.
Justice Shravan Kumar made these observations while dealing with a petition filed by Pemmasani Sudha Rani, alleging that revenue and HYDRAA officials had illegally demolished a compound wall and a structure on her property in Plot No. 9 in Survey No. 60 of Kondapur, without issuing notice or following due process of law.
Despite earlier High Court directions to let her construct the compound wall, HYDRAA had entered the property on October 4, 2025, demolished the structure and a watchman's room without issuing notice and had attempted to dispossess her from the land. At a hearing on July 28, HYDRAA had submitted that it had undertaken the demolition on the instructions of the Serilingampally tahsildar.
Based on HYDRAA’s submission, the judge summoned the tahsildar. The official on Thursday informed the court that he or his office had never informed or written to HYDRAA to demolish the structures. Further, government counsel for revenue Katram Muralidhar Reddy submitted that the collector’s office wrote a letter for protection and removal of a few small structures in government land situated in Survey No. 59 to the commissioner of police on October 3, 2025, and marked a copy to HYDRAA, while the petitioner’s plot was located in Survey No. 60 and was private land.
The court inquired how the HYDRAA officials came to the conclusion that the plot was situated adjacent to Survey No. 59, which is government land, and questioned if any due diligence had been done before the demolition of the structure.
When HYDRAA's counsel replied that based on the tahsildar's communication on October 1, 2025, the agency had demolished the structures on October 4, the court inquired if the petitioner had been issued notice, and questioned the urgency of demolishing the structure within three days. The judge repeatedly asked if the district collector mentioned any communication to demolish the particular building. The court also asked if any “outside force pressured you (HYDRAA)” to demolish the structure.
Justice Shravan Kumar noted that even if it was government land, notice has to be issued and time given to the party to respond. “What was the necessity of swift action,” the judge asked. “Moreover, when the High Court had already issued directions to follow due process,” the judge said and asked if steps had been initiated under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act. “Is HYDRAA running parallel executive system or government,” the court asked.
Expressing anguish over the repeated incidents of bypassing of court orders, Justice Shravan Kumar observed that he was fully endorsing the recent orders and findings of a High Court bench headed by Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar over the HYDRAA’s “enthusiasm and its overt acts” with regard to the three contempt cases filed by Shanta Shriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd challenging the agency’s interference in the private land despite the status quo order issued by the court. The judge said he fully agreed with the findings of the coordinate bench headed by Justice Anil Kumar.
Justice Shravan Kumar further observed: “You (HYDRAA) will do whatever you want… You demolish without following procedure… You do not care about court orders. You either do not check the records from the other side or conduct a survey, and you don't respect court orders… for that only the courts intervenes on behalf of the affected side.”
Without mentioning public statements in wake of the recent orders against HYDRAA, Justice Shravan Kumar responded that it was a clear case of who was misleading whom. “The courts are not misled,” he said and observed: “You cannot talk about institutions. If violations happen, the courts will step in. What are courts meant for?”
Directing all the respondents to file a detailed counter within one week on demolition of the structures, the Judge directed the Serilingampally tahsildar to appear before the court on all days of the hearing of the petition till its disposal.
