Telangana High Court warns HYDRAA, briefly orders Army deployment in contempt case

The Telangana High Court sharply criticised the State government and HYDRAA over alleged violations of its orders in a land dispute. The Court initially ordered Army deployment to protect the property but deferred the direction after the Advocate General assured there would be no further interference.

Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the State Government and HYDRAA over the repeated alleged violation of judicial orders in a contempt case and initially directed the deployment of Army personnel to enforce the Court’s directions. However, the Court deferred the operation of the direction after Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy assured that there would be no further interference with the petitioner’s land. The observations were made while hearing a contempt petition filed by M/s. Shantha Sriram Constructions Private Limited alleging that HYDRAA officials had violated the High Court’s earlier orders by interfering with its land admeasuring Ac.40.00 in Survey Nos.1 and 2 of Lothkunta Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

---

The petitioner alleged that despite repeated assurances given before the Court, HYDRAA officials had continued to enter the disputed property, compelling it to initiate contempt proceedings for the third time. Counsel for the petitioner, M. Harish Kumar, contended that during the previous hearing held on July 20, HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath had personally appeared before the Court and assured that the authorities would not interfere with the petitioner’s possession. However, immediately after the matter was adjourned on July 21, the petitioner commenced restoration work on the property, following which HYDRAA officials, accompanied by police personnel and machinery, allegedly entered the land and obstructed the work. It was further submitted that the officials warned the petitioner’s staff not to proceed with any activity on the ground that the authorities intended to challenge the Court’s orders before the appellate forum. Counsel placed photographs before the Court to substantiate the allegations of continued interference.

Expressing strong displeasure over the allegations, Justice Anil Kumar observed that despite three contempt proceedings being initiated in respect of the same issue and repeated assurances given by the State, including by the Advocate General, the Court’s orders were allegedly not being implemented. The Judge observed that although the Army is ordinarily not expected to interfere in civil disputes, the Court was constrained to consider such an extraordinary course because it had lost confidence in the State machinery to enforce judicial orders. The Court further remarked that even those functioning in the State Secretariat should know what was happening on the ground when judicial orders were repeatedly alleged to have been violated.

Observing that the Court could not remain a silent spectator to repeated disobedience of its orders, Justice Anil Kumar directed the Registrar General to contact the senior-most Brigadier of the Bison Division and identify Army officers for deployment to secure the disputed property. The Court observed that Army personnel, if deployed, would ensure that no person, including HYDRAA officials, entered the land in violation of the Court’s orders and that any machinery brought to the site could be detained. The Registry was also directed to forward a copy of the order to the Union Government. At this stage, Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy appeared before the Court and assured that HYDRAA officials had not entered the petitioner’s land after the earlier hearing and would not interfere with the property in future. Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan requested the Court to grant the State one final opportunity and assured that there would be no further interference. Taking note of the assurance, Justice Anil Kumar deferred the implementation of the proposed directions regarding deployment of Army personnel and directed the concerned officer to file a detailed affidavit placing the complete facts on record. The matter was thereafter adjourned to Friday for further hearing.