Telangana High Court says HYDRA ought to follow procedure

Justice K Lakshman directed the agency to adhere to legal procedures before demolishing structures identified as illegal. The judge also voiced concern over possible discrimination in HYDRA's approach, stating that it could not go and demolish structures 'just like that'.

by Legal Correspondent 

Hyderabad: The functioning of the latest law enforcement agency of the Congress government, the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection (HYDRA), on Thursday came in for scrutiny by the High Court, which sought to know the legal grounds for its demolition activities. Justice K Lakshman directed the agency to adhere to legal procedures before demolishing structures identified as illegal. The judge also voiced concern over possible discrimination in HYDRA’s approach, stating that it could not go and demolish structures ‘just like that’.

---

The directions came in the wake of a writ petition filed by a businessman Pradeep Reddy Badvelu, who challenged an apparent move to demolish his farmhouse in Janwada of Shankarpally mandal in Rangareddy District. Justice Lakshman asked Additional Advocate General (AAG) Imran Khan on the legal grounds for HYDRA’s demolition activities. Though Khan explained that HYDRA itself does not issue notices but relies on the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) or local municipalities to notify property owners about the need to provide documents for disputed properties, the Judge raised significant concerns about the due process, emphasising that home owners who have legally purchased properties and obtained permits should not face unexpected demolition actions a decade later.

“I am very serious on this matter… HYDRA officials cannot go and demolish the structures just like that… they have to follow due procedure of law,” Justice Lakshman remarked, stressing that HYDRA must meticulously verify documents such as sale deeds, construction permissions and utility payments before moving forward with any demolitions. The importance of ensuring that all legal procedures were followed to prevent unfair treatment of property owners who have complied with legal requirements was considered. Justice Lakshman also voiced concerns about possible discrimination in HYDRA’s approach, emphasizing that the agency should apply consistent standards for all properties, regardless of their size, be it 60 square yards or 60 acres. He directed the Additional Advocate General to furnish detailed information about HYDRA, including its legal status, constitution, powers and activities. Additionally, the judge requested specifics on notifications pertaining to properties within Full Tank Level (FTL) zones.

The Judge also directed the authorities to produce before court the preliminary or final report of the Irrigation and CAD department which would show that the petitioner’s property was falling within the FTL of Osman Sagar. It was the case of the petitioner that his farmhouse, consisting of ground floor plus first floor, was purchased through a registered sale deed and constructed in 2014 after obtaining due permissions and approvals from the gram panchayat. Pradeep Reddy said in Janwada village, there were only two lakes, Kodi Cheruvu and Thumasamudhra Kunta, and affirmed that his land was not falling in the FTL of Osman Sagar. He also relied upon the maps of the gram panchayat and Osman Sagar to buttress his submission that his farmhouse was not falling within the FTL range. However, attempts were being made to demolish his farmhouse by linking him to a political leader of the erstwhile ruling party in the State, he said, also referring to a litigation raised before the National Green Tribunal and the order of the High Court which held that proceedings before the said forum were not maintainable.

The AAG, defending HYDRA’s actions, urged the court against issuing any interim orders that could impede the agency’s work. He argued that such orders could interfere with efforts to safeguard urban lakes from illegal constructions. He also requested that the court resolve the petition with a final order rather than imposing temporary measures. The Judge directed that all the documents including sale deeds and tax receipts have to be examined and the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity of hearing before the authorities take any decision. Keeping the matter pending for further adjudication, the judge granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the court in case of violation of the order. The judge will hear the matter further on September 12.