Telangana High Court Restrains HYDRAA Demolitions, Demands SOP Submission
The Telangana High Court has issued a significant order restraining the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HYDRAA) from proceeding with demolitions of unauthorized constructions without first placing its standard operating procedure before the court. The court expressed serious objections to what it described as the "high-handedness" of the agency and directed it to limit its activities strictly to the removal of encroachments and restoration of water bodies, nalas, parks, and public roads.
Court Criticizes "War-Like Situation" During Demolitions
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, while hearing a lunch motion challenging the demolition of a century-old structure along with other buildings on a farmhouse in Ameenpur, expressed strong displeasure with HYDRAA's methods. The court criticized the agency for creating what it described as a "war-like situation" while carrying out demolitions, particularly during pre-dawn hours, without adherence to any established SOP or clarity regarding the legal framework governing such actions.
The property in question spans 36.37 acres across multiple survey numbers, and the court has ordered maintenance of status quo while directing HYDRAA to file its counter affidavits within two weeks. The matter has been posted for further hearing on April 20.
Multiple Legal Concerns Raised
The judge directed the agency not to take any coercive steps—including demolition of unauthorized constructions, removal of internal roads, or dismantling of compound walls—until it submits its SOP or guidelines in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, the Municipalities Act, or any other applicable laws.
The court made several critical observations:
- Several "unauthorized actions" undertaken by HYDRAA, ostensibly in the public interest, appeared to have been carried out at the instance of private individuals
- Multiple High Court orders had previously cautioned against such actions
- Nearly 100 cases involving HYDRAA were currently pending before the judge, and in none of these instances had the agency demonstrated adherence to any SOP
- Even after a year of its existence, there remains a lack of clarity as to whether HYDRAA operates under the GHMC Act, the Municipalities Act, or any other statutory framework
Reference to Supreme Court Directive
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2024 directive against "bulldozer justice," which mandates a minimum notice period of 15 days before any demolition, Justice Reddy emphasized the necessity for strict judicial scrutiny. He remarked that HYDRAA's actions appeared inconsistent with established legal procedures and the fundamental principles of natural justice, warranting firm intervention by the court.
The judge noted that this persistent ambiguity, coupled with HYDRAA's manner of functioning, indicated that its actions were not aligned with proper legal direction, despite its claims of restoring several water bodies in and around Hyderabad.
Petitioner's Allegations and Government's Defense
Senior counsel L Ravichander, appearing for the petitioner—a 98-year-old farmer named M A Shareef—alleged that HYDRAA officials, accompanied by local police and revenue personnel, arrived at the farmhouse in Ameenpur at approximately 4 am on April 11 and proceeded with demolitions without issuing any prior notice.
The counsel stated that in addition to a large water tank, several sheds and other structures were demolished. The officials were also accused of seizing 12 CCTV cameras along with their data storage device.
In response, additional advocate general Mohd Imran Khan defended HYDRAA's actions, asserting that the petitioner had attempted to encroach upon extensive tracts of government land and that the demolished structures had been constructed without the requisite permissions.
Court's Examination of Evidence
While examining photographic and video evidence submitted before the court, Justice Reddy expressed concern over the demolition of a substantial structure without prior notice, based merely on the assumption that it lacked sanctioned approval. He also criticized the authorities for their failure to act at the initial stage of construction.
Observing that timely intervention could have prevented the situation, the court remarked that the authorities had effectively allowed the structure to come up unchecked, only to later contend that it was unauthorized. This pattern of delayed action followed by aggressive demolition raised serious questions about procedural fairness and administrative responsibility.
The court's intervention represents a significant judicial check on demolition activities in Telangana, emphasizing the importance of due process, transparency, and adherence to established legal frameworks in urban development and encroachment removal operations.
