HYDRAA not ‘super cops of governance’: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court observed that HYDRAA cannot act beyond powers granted under law or enter private property without authority. While disposing of contempt cases, the Court directed the agency not to interfere with a petitioner's land and stressed adherence to legal limits.
Hyderabad: Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court observed that HYDRAA officials appeared to be under the notion that they were “a class apart” and clarified that they were “not super cops of governance”, while holding that the agency cannot enter private property without lawful authority and cannot act beyond the powers conferred on it by law.
The observations came while disposing of two contempt cases filed by M/s Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited against HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath, alleging violation of earlier court orders protecting the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of land in Lothukunta village in Medchal-Malkajgiri district.
The petitioner contended that despite an undertaking recorded by the Court on January 9, 2026, that the State authorities would comply with the orders passed in the writ proceedings, HYDRAA officials entered the property and interfered with its peaceful possession. It was further submitted that the State had failed to establish any right over the land despite pursuing remedies before various forums. HYDRAA, through its standing counsel, submitted that its officials had visited the site based on a representation received from an organisation styled as “Society to Save Rocks”.
Rejecting the explanation, Justice Anil Kumar observed that HYDRAA owes its existence to the Government Order under which it was constituted and that its actions cannot go beyond the boundaries prescribed therein. The Court noted that HYDRAA is empowered to protect public assets and had no reason whatsoever to enter a private property. Holding that the undertaking given on behalf of the State Government could not be diluted, the Court observed that any act in violation of such an undertaking would amount to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Court’s orders.
The Judge remarked that HYDRAA officials should not venture into such “misadventures” and that their interference with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property was illegal and unsustainable. The Court further observed that officers may be enthusiastic in performing their duties in the interest of the State, but such actions must remain within the four corners of the law and any deviation would amount to overreach and invite the wrath of the courts.
Emphasising that different departments of the Government are its limbs and must act in coordination, Justice Jukanti held that undertakings given by law officers on behalf of the State bind every department of the Government. The Court recorded HYDRAA’s undertaking that its officers would not enter or interfere with the petitioner’s property in future and directed the agency and its staff not to disturb the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land.
