Telangana High Court issues restraining order against HYDRAA

Telangana High Court issued a restraining order against HYDRAA and other authorities, prohibiting them from taking any immediate action against NVN Constructions Pvt Ltd concerning a 13.17-acre plot in Kukatpally Village, Medchal - Malkajgiri.

By Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday issued a restraining order against HYDRAA and other authorities, prohibiting them from taking any immediate action against NVN Constructions Pvt Ltd concerning a 13.17-acre plot in Kukatpally Village, Medchal – Malkajgiri.

---

The writ petition was filed by N.V.N Constructions, alleging that HYDRAA was attempting to interfere with and disrupt the physical features of their land, threatening demolition under the pretext that the land falls within a different survey number of Khanamet Village, Edulakunta, Serilingampally. The petitioner’s counsel argued that previous surveys conducted in the area confirmed no overlap between survey numbers of Khanamet Village and Kukatpally Village. The petitioner contended that an earlier 2014 survey report indicating land overlap had been legally challenged through an independent writ petition. The High Court had previously ruled that the impugned survey report was not binding on the petitioner and that the respondents could not claim rights or interfere with the land based on that survey.

Justice Vinod’s observation emphasized that only the Collector had the authority to resolve disputes related to overlapping survey numbers, not the Survey Department. The court stated that without a valid decision from the Collector, the impugned survey report could not be used to claim rights or interfere with the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the court’s earlier order, which restrained the State from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession, should be binding on all State instruments, including HYDRAA. He contended that any attempt by HYDRAA to disrupt the land or threaten demolition would be a violation of the court’s order. In response, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) argued that the petitioner’s concerns were based on apprehensions. GHMC stated that while it had received a complaint about potential encroachment by the petitioner on a tank, no action had been taken, and any future action would follow due legal process.

After hearing the arguments, the judge directed HYDRAA and other respondents not to take any precipitative action concerning the 13.17-acre land of the petitioner in Kukatpally Village. The matter has been posted for further adjudication.