Appear in person or face non-bailable warrant, Telangana HC warns Hydraa chief

The Telangana High Court strongly criticised Hydraa Commissioner AV Ranganath in the Bathukamma Kunta dispute, warning of a non-bailable warrant if he skips the December 5 hearing. In a separate case, the court halted Hydraa’s Sunnam Cheruvu works for violating norms

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (Hydraa) Commissioner AV Ranganath in the ongoing Bathukamma Kunta dispute, cautioning that a non-bailable warrant would be issued if he fails to appear in person by December 5.

A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a contempt case filed by A Sudhakar Reddy. The petitioner alleged that Hydraa carried out substantial alterations on the disputed land in violation of the court’s earlier orders. On the previous date, the court had recorded that photographs from June 13 to October 5, 2025 prima facie showed major modifications on the land despite subsisting directions that Hydraa must not encroach upon the petitioner’s interest. The Bench had ordered issuance of Form-I notice to the Commissioner after observing that there was sufficient material indicating substantial changes to the property.

---

When the matter was taken up on Thursday, Commissioner Ranganath filed an absent petition. The court refused to accept the explanation and made it clear that his personal presence was mandatory. The Bench warned that failure to appear before the court on December 5 would result in a non-bailable warrant. The contempt case will be taken up next on December 5.

Sunnam Cheruvu case

In a separate case, the High Court came down sharply on Hydraa for undertaking demolitions and excavation works at Sunnam Cheruvu without first determining the Full Tank Level (FTL) or the actual boundaries of the water body.

Justice Anil Kumar, hearing the batch of petitions relating to Sunnam Cheruvu at Guttalabegumpet, repeatedly questioned how Hydraa could proceed with field activity when even the basic survey details remain unsettled.

The court noted that the National Green Tribunal’s findings on the extent of the lake were available, yet the agency had failed to act on them. The judge pointed out that Hydraa had not invoked Section 90 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, which is the statutory mechanism for resolving boundary overlaps an issue central to the dispute between Survey Nos.12 and 13. He asked how fencing, digging and alleged demolition work could be justified when village boundaries themselves had not been confirmed.

The Bench expressed serious concern over the impact of Hydraa’s actions on residents of the SIAET/CEAT Colony abutting the lake. The court observed that interfering with private lands without completing the mandatory survey process amounts to a violation of the citizens’ right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

“What is the basis for fencing or excavation when the FTL itself has not been established?” the court asked, taking exception to the manner in which Hydraa proceeded despite earlier directions.

The judge made it clear that no fencing, demolition or physical interference shall take place in the colony lands until the State finalises the village boundaries and conducts a proper survey. The court further directed that Hydraa must first determine the FTL of Sunnam Cheruvu and address all overlapping survey number issues before taking any enforcement action.