HC Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost on HYDRAA for Fencing Land Despite Court Order
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar held that if the fencing is not removed forthwith, HYDRAA shall pay an additional Rs 1 lakh per day to the landowners until compliance.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on HYDRAA for fencing private land despite a binding civil court decree declaring ownership in favour of the petitioners, and directed immediate removal of the fencing.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar held that if the fencing is not removed forthwith, HYDRAA shall pay an additional Rs 1 lakh per day to the landowners until compliance. The matter has been posted to March 18, 2026, for reporting compliance and filing of counters.
The court observed that any fencing or installation of boards on lands involved in pending litigation must be undertaken only pursuant to directions issued by a jurisdictional court or the High Court. It criticised what it termed HYDRAA’s “high-handed” practice of fencing properties and erecting boards without court authorisation in civil disputes.
The order came on a petition filed by Jonnalagadda Padmini and another, challenging HYDRAA’s action in fencing Plot Nos. 184 and 185, each measuring 500 square yards in Survey No. 100 at Babanagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy district.
The petitioners contended that they were dispossessed despite a decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri district at Kushaiguda, declaring them absolute owners and granting permanent injunction restraining GHMC and its officials from interfering with their possession.
Earlier, on February 19, the High Court appointed an advocate commissioner to inspect the site. In a report dated February 24, the commissioner stated that 1,804 square yards had been fenced with chain-linked barbed wire and a HYDRAA signboard installed. The total fenced area measured approximately 3,000 square yards, within which the subject plots were located.
The High Court noted that the civil court decrees had attained finality and were binding on authorities. It held that HYDRAA proceeded with fencing despite being aware of the decree and without obtaining any order from a competent court.
Terming the action a disregard of binding judicial orders, the court directed removal of the fencing and payment of costs to the petitioners.
