Telangana High Court Grills HYDRAA Over Gandipet Land Fencing Dispute
The Telangana High Court on Monday issued pointed queries to the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), demanding clarity on whether it adhered to previous judicial directives to dismantle a fence encircling a 1,600 square yard plot at Gandipet, located on the outskirts of Hyderabad. The court's interrogation came during a hearing on petitions that accused HYDRAA of unlawfully fencing land, thereby obstructing access to private property.
Court Questions HYDRAA's Authority and Procedures
Justice NV Shravan Kumar, presiding over the case, posed a series of critical questions to HYDRAA's legal representatives. The judge sought detailed explanations regarding the specific procedures the agency employs for identifying land parcels and erecting fences around them. Furthermore, he inquired about the total number of land parcels HYDRAA has fenced in the past and challenged the agency to substantiate its legal authority to undertake such actions.
The court made strong observations, emphasizing that constitutional courts exist to safeguard government land, and agencies like HYDRAA cannot operate beyond the purview of judicial oversight. "The prima facie view taken by courts against you is that you are acting like that," the high court remarked, highlighting concerns over HYDRAA's autonomous conduct.
HYDRAA's Defense and Petitioners' Allegations
In response, HYDRAA's counsel argued that the agency's actions were aimed at protecting government land from encroachments. The counsel stated that HYDRAA initiates measures based on complaints received through various forums and also takes preventative steps to secure vulnerable government land parcels. Specifically, the agency claimed it only fenced a septic tank and adjacent government land, denying any fencing of the petitioners' property.
However, the petitioners contested this, alleging that the fence erected by HYDRAA around the open land and septic tank effectively blocked their access to their land, which is situated at the center of the fenced area. This obstruction prompted the court to direct HYDRAA to remove the fence from the private property immediately.
Non-Compliance with Court Orders and Broader Scrutiny
The judge also highlighted HYDRAA's failure to comply with a court order issued on February 10, which mandated the removal of the fence within 48 hours of receiving the directive. This non-compliance raised further judicial concerns about the agency's adherence to legal mandates.
Additionally, when HYDRAA's counsel requested additional time to file counters, Justice Kumar pointed out that over 400 cases related to HYDRAA are currently pending before the court. He demanded an explanation for why counters have not been filed in numerous matters and why HYDRAA officers have not assisted during hearings, underscoring a pattern of procedural lapses.
Court's Directives and Adjournment
In light of these issues, the judge instructed HYDRAA's counsel to ensure strict compliance with all court orders. The matters were adjourned for further hearing, with the court maintaining a vigilant stance on HYDRAA's operations and its accountability to judicial authority. This case underscores the ongoing tension between government agencies' enforcement actions and the protective role of the judiciary in land disputes.
