HC Clips HYDRAA Powers; Directs It To Stop Demolitions

Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Monday scathingly questioning HYDRAA’s authority, asking whether it was "thinking above the courts" or "running a parallel government" by unilaterally taking possession of land that were under judicial scrutiny.

The reprimand came while the court was dealing with a writ petition filed by one Jitendra, whose property in Suraram of Medchal Malkajgiri district HYDRAA had unilaterally taken possession of. The petitioner alleged that on April 6, HYDRAA officials high-handedly entered Plot No.s 103 and 104 in Survey No. 105, erecting barbed wire fencing and public notice boards without any prior notice or legal authorisation.

Justice Shravan Kumar took serious exception to these actions, particularly in cases where the court had issued status quo orders.

“Who authorised you to take possession of such lands? Was it the revenue department or the MA&UD department,” the court asked, directing HYDRAA to place on record any permission or communication empowering such actions. The judge made it clear that unilateral intervention in disputed properties, especially those under judicial consideration, could not be justified.

The court also questioned HYDRAA’s priorities, remarking that the agency appeared to be focusing disproportionately on disputed land parcels instead of its core mandate of protecting water bodies and managing disaster response. “Why is there no similar urgency in safeguarding lakes and water bodies,” the court observed.

Justice Shravan Kumar cautioned HYDRAA against acting beyond its jurisdiction. “If you really want to protect such lands… then file applications before the court and ask for protection. How could you go to the lands, which are sub-judice? How will you decide the title of the land and take possession by throwing everyone out,” the judge asked.

“Are you running a parallel government or placing yourself above the courts? Your actions are overlapping judicial authority,” Justice Shravan Kumar said. “It is not your choice to decide where to intervene and take possession.”

The court said such actions would not be ratified. The judge questioned whether HYDRAA had any “vested interest” in targeting disputed land parcels, noting a pattern in the agency’s conduct of selecting properties under litigation, demolishing structures, fencing them off, and erecting boards declaring them as government land.

Telangana HC Hears Plea Over 'Unauthorised' Demolition of Historic Chiran Palace

A petition has been filed before the Telangana High Court raising serious concerns over the alleged inaction of authorities in preventing the demolition of a notified heritage structure, Chiran Fort / Chiran Palace, located at Patigadda, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Justice N.V. Sharavan Kumar heard the matter on Monday and directed government counsel to get details.

The petitioner contended that despite submitting a formal representation, no steps were taken by the authorities concerned to halt illegal and unauthorised demolition of the historic structure.

According to the petition, the structure was a notified heritage site and was protected under existing regulations, including GO Ms No. 102, issued on March 23, 1998. This GO mandates the preservation of heritage buildings and imposes a duty on authorities to prevent any alterations or demolition without due process.

Viveka Murder Case: Dr Suneetha Moves Telangana HC Seeking Reinvestigation

Dr N. Suneetha has moved the Telangana High Court seeking a reinvestigation into the murder of her father Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, a former minister, in March 2019. She approached the High Court after a CBI special court rejected her plea for a further probe.

When the matter came up on Monday, Justice K. Sujana directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had earlier investigated the case, to file its counter affidavit.

During the hearing, some of the accused sought to implead themselves as parties to the criminal petition. Dr Suneetha’s counsel S. Goutham opposed the move, informing the court that the accused had been heard by the trial court. The High Court adjourned the matter to April 27.

In her plea, Dr Suneetha challenged the CBI court’s order insofar as it limited the scope of further investigation. She requested the High Court to direct the CBI to carry out a comprehensive and unrestricted probe into all aspects of the case, including those she alleges were either overlooked or inadequately examined.

In a related development in the same case, the High Court reserved orders in a separate petition filed by one of the accused, Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy, seeking relaxation of his bail conditions.