‘War-like situation’: Telangana High Court slams HYDRAA, orders status quo in Ailapur farmhouse row

The case pertains to the demolition of a century-old structure by HYDRAA on farmland owned by the 98-year-old petitioner, M A Shareef.

‘High-handed action of HYDRAA’

Senior Counsel L Ravichander, led by Advocate Deepak Misra, contended that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner by any of the respondent authorities, including HYDRAA, before carrying out the demolition. He submitted that the respondents’ allegation that the building was constructed without a sanctioned plan is, on the face of the record, incorrect.

The court expressed disbelief that a massive structure could be demolished at 4 am without any prior notice. While the Additional Advocate General, Md Imran Khan, argued that the petitioner was attempting to grab over a thousand acres of government land under the guise of a 2009 decree, the court noted that even for unauthorised structures, the principles of natural justice must be followed.

“Things could have been in place if action had been taken at the inception… Instead, the authorities, having blindfolded themselves and having allowed a huge structure to come up, now complain before the Court that the construction was made without any sanctioned plan,” Justice Reddy said.

Noting that “HYDRAA takes pride in claiming that it has restored several water bodies in and around Hyderabad”, Justice Reddy added, “The fact that hundreds of cases have been filed in this Court complaining high-handed action of HYDRAA is a sufficient indication that actions of HYDRAA, to say the least, are not in the proper direction.”

‘Created hype of the situation’

Despite being in existence for a year, the court found that HYDRAA lacks a clear legal framework or standard procedure and “it is still not known whether HYDRAA is following the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or the Municipalities Act.”

“On seeing the photographs and the video clippings, this Court is of prima facie opinion that HYDRAA is not following any standard procedures,” Justice Reddy said.

Referring to the demolition of the subject farmhouse, Justice Reddy said, “The manner in which the HYDRAA officials assembled at the site and created hype of the situation… is akin to a war-like situation, and the same cannot be countenanced.”

The court concluded that no coercive action regarding unauthorised constructions, internal roads, or compound walls shall be taken until HYDRAA places its “standard operating procedures or guidelines in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, the Municipalities Act, or other applicable regulations/rules” before the court.