Telangana HC Questions HYDRA’s Conduct, Orders Status Quo in Land Dispute Case

The Telangana High Court has expressed strong dissatisfaction with HYDRA, emphasizing that while it does not oppose the protection of lakes and government lands, any action taken must be strictly within the bounds of the law. The court questioned why HYDRA's conduct had not changed despite repeated instructions. It further warned that if HYDRA continued to act outside the legal framework or in violation of Government Order (G.O.) 99, it might have to be shut down.

The case before the court involved a petition filed by an individual named Praveen, who alleged that his shed in Muthangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy district, was demolished without proper verification of land records. Justice K. Lakshman presided over the hearing and made several critical observations.

The High Court remarked that some individuals were using HYDRA as a tool to pursue personal vendettas and that demolitions should not be carried out based on such complaints. It questioned where HYDRA had the authority to determine property rights and emphasized that any demolitions should be conducted only after issuing proper notices and allowing time for responses. The court reiterated its frustration, stating that despite multiple directives, HYDRA had failed to change its approach.

Praveen's legal counsel argued that the demolitions were initiated based on a complaint from the Gayatri Members Association, which alleged that constructions were being carried out on parkland. However, the counsel pointed out that the local gram panchayat had granted approval for these constructions on November 15, 2023.

In defense, HYDRA’s legal representative, Ravinder Reddy, contended that the approvals were obtained by threatening the panchayat secretary, who later revoked them. He asserted that the demolitions were carried out only after thoroughly reviewing all relevant documents. Reddy also referenced a Supreme Court ruling, stating that structures obstructing roads should be removed.

The High Court reacted sharply to HYDRA’s claims, questioning how it could allege that the permissions were obtained through coercion. The court also asked why approvals granted in 2023 were revoked after such a long period and why this issue had not been raised in previous hearings.

Further questioning the credibility of the complaint, the court asked why the Gayatri Members Association had not raised concerns about encroachment before HYDRA’s involvement. It also inquired who had the authority to determine parkland status and questioned the powers of the village sarpanch in approving layouts. Additionally, the court demanded an explanation for branding the petitioner as an encroacher.

Concluding the hearing, the High Court directed that the status quo be maintained and instructed HYDRA to submit a detailed counter-affidavit with all relevant information. The next hearing is scheduled for March 5.