Bathukamma Kunta Contempt Case Against HYDRAA: SC Remands Matter Back to HC

Hyderabad:The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana High Court to examine whether the gate, fencing and retaining wall constructed by HYDRAA at the Bathukammakunta in Hyderabad should be allowed to remain or not. The apex court observed that the High Court was better placed to assess the local circumstances.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was not inclined to give positive orders as requested by HYDRAA commissioner A.V. Ranganath, who sought retention of the gate, the fencing and the retaining wall at the lake.

The dispute arose from contempt proceedings initiated against the HYDRAA commissioner by petitioner Sudhakar Reddy, who alleged that the agency had violated the Telangana High Court's status quo orders by undertaking construction activities at Bathukamma Kunta. The High Court, while hearing the contempt petition, had on March 17 directed removal of the structures within four weeks. Challenging that direction, the commissioner had approached the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court considered a compliance affidavit filed by the commissioner pursuant to its earlier order dated April 27. The affidavit stated that HYDRAA had substantially complied with the High Court's directions by removing the children's play equipment, open-air gym equipment, the inauguration plaque and the information board. However, the commissioner sought permission to retain the gate, fencing and retaining wall, contending that there were valid reasons for their continuation.

The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits of that justification. "At this stage, we do not wish to examine whether the justification is valid and proper or not. In our considered opinion, interest of justice would be best served if the High Court is requested to examine the justification and to take a further decision as to whether such gate, fencing and retaining wall should be permitted to be retained or not," the apex court bench observed.

The apex court granted liberty to Sudhakar Reddy to file objections to the compliance affidavit before the High Court within two weeks.

On the issue of High Court’s finding against Ranganath of contempt, the Supreme Court ordered that it would remain suspended until the High Court determined whether the reasons offered for retaining the remaining structures were legally sustainable.

The bench clarified that if the High Court concluded that the justification was neither valid nor proper, the suspension of the contempt finding would automatically cease, enabling the High Court to pass appropriate consequential orders.

The Supreme Court requested the Telangana High Court to decide the issue in accordance with law at the earliest. It also urged the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the connected civil appeal which concerns the larger dispute over the Bathukammakunta property.

HC came down heavily on HYDRAA Commissioner for his repeated contempt activities

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Monday came down heavily on HYDRAA commissioner A.V. Ranganath for his repeated violation of judicial directions and apparent conduct in undermining the authority of the judiciary by interfering with the private properties in spite of judicial orders not to do so.

The court observed that this conduct by the contemnor — the HYDRAA commissioner — had become habitual and noted that it was very conscious in using the term “habitual offender” for such conduct. However, the court was careful to clarify that it was consciously refraining from formally using that expression in the proceedings.

The court said government authorities were duty-bound to act strictly in accordance with law and could not take coercive action on private property in defiance of subsisting court orders.

Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar made the observations while hearing a fresh contempt petition filed by the real estate firm Shantha Sriram Constructions Private Ltd, alleging that HYDRAA officials demolished compound walls and structures in their land over about 40 acres in Survey No.s 1 and 2 of Lothukunta of Medchal Malkajgiri district on July 17 despite earlier orders restraining interference with the property.

The court noted that three contempt petitions filed on the same issue reflected a disturbing pattern of disregard for judicial orders by HYDRAA. The judge remarked that the victims in such cases were "not merely the petitioners, but the court itself."

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel M. Harish Kumar submitted that HYDRAA officials proceeded with the demolition despite being informed that the property was protected by subsisting court orders. He contended that the authorities had acted in complete disregard of judicial directions, registered a criminal case against the petitioner, and detained him at a police station until the evening.

The court observed that if such violations continued, it might be compelled to direct the police to secure the personal presence of the HYDRAA commissioner before the court. The matter was initially adjourned till the evening after the commissioner informed the court that he would appear personally at 6.30 pm.

Advocate-General A. Sudarshan Reddy appearing for the state and HYDRAA, submitted that the government was attempting to safeguard 119 acres in the adjacent Survey No. 243 that constituted government land. He informed the court that a survey could be conducted to demarcate government land.

The court questioned why such a survey had not been completed despite an earlier assurance given by the district collector. Justice Anil Kumar asked how the revenue divisional officer (RDO) could direct HYDRAA to proceed without first implementing the assurance recorded before the court.

Referring to the state's submission that the land was defence property, the court asked why defence authorities had not been impleaded as parties. The judge also observed that introducing such a contention while related proceedings were pending before division bench was wholly inappropriate.

The court also questioned the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and criticised the authorities for allegedly failing to furnish a copy of the FIR. It directed that a copy be supplied immediately to the petitioner's counsel and ordered the respondents to file an affidavit explaining the action taken and posted the matter to July 21.

HC gave interim protection to the land owners of the Bahadurguda

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Monday restrained the state government and HYDRAA from taking coercive steps in respect of the 26.03 acres of agricultural land in Bahadurguda in Rangareddy, reportedly part of a larger tract of nearly 650 acres proposed to be acquired by the state government for the Mumbai–Hyderabad bullet train project.

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy issued the interim order while hearing a lunch-motion writ petition filed by Jakkidi Yadi Reddy and three other landowners challenging HYDRAA's alleged action of entering their land at Bahadurguda in Shamshabad mandal, and erecting fencing around it. The judge made it clear that the interim orders will continue till further hearing.

The petitioners alleged that despite their long-standing ownership and possession, HYDRAA officials entered the land on July 18 with bulldozers and excavators, demolished the gates and fenced the property, preventing them from accessing the land and carrying out agricultural operations.

Senior counsel V. Raghunath, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that his clients had purchased the land through registered sale deeds during 1989-90 and were cultivating various crops. He urged the court to restrain the agency from interfering with the petitioners' possession pending adjudication of the dispute.

Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy submitted that the petitioners had failed to establish ownership by producing valid registered sale deeds, pahanis, title documents, e-passbooks or link documents. He argued that there were discrepancies in the petitioners' claim regarding the survey numbers, contending that while they claimed ownership over land in Survey No.s 3 and 5, the government had nearly 650 acres in Survey No.s 28 and 62.

HC directs State to take decision on 714 probation JLs issues within two months

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Monday directed the state government to take a decision within two months on the regularisation of services, declaration of probation and release of annual grade increments to 714 junior lecturers after completing verification of their educational certificates.

Justice Kaja Sarath, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by 714 junior lecturers, declined to issue an interim direction for the immediate release of annual increments or other financial benefits, leaving it to the authorities to take an appropriate decision

The petitioners had challenged the action of the education department in withholding their second and third annual grade increments, which became due in May 2025 and 2026, and in not declaring the completion of their probation despite their services having been regularised under GO Ms. No.s 19, 20 and 21, all dated May 1, 2023.

The petitioners sought directions to treat them as having completed probation and to release all consequential service and monetary benefits. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the junior lecturers had completed the prescribed period of service under Rule 18 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules after regularisation and were legally entitled to annual grade increments.

Government counsel informed the court that the process of verifying the educational qualifications of the lecturers was still underway. It submitted that nearly 70 per cent of the regularised employees had obtained educational qualifications from institutions outside Telangana, including those located in Sikkim, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh.

Government counsel stated that officials were visiting the respective educational institutions to verify the authenticity of certificates and examine original records. The verification process was progressing expeditiously and a final decision on the lecturers' service benefits would be taken after completion of the exercise.

After considering the submissions, Justice Kaja Sarath noted that the verification process was already in progress and directed the authorities to complete it within two months. The Court further ordered the Education Department to take a decision on the petitioners' regularisation-related issues, declaration of probation and release of annual grade increments strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules, government orders and the law after the verification is completed.