The Telangana High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) over its alleged discriminatory actions in demolishing structures and fencing lands, including those that are sub judice. The court questioned why HYDRAA had not taken any action against the Barrister Fatima Owaisi Educational Campus, which is allegedly constructed in the Full Tank Level (FTL) area of Salkam Cheruvu in the Old City.
Court Orders Detailed Inquiry
Taking serious note of the institution built within the lake reportedly without requisite approvals, Justice NV Shravan Kumar directed the principal secretaries of Revenue, Irrigation, Municipal Administration, and School Education Departments to conduct a detailed inquiry into all erring officials who failed to act during the construction over the years. The departments were ordered to file a detailed report. The court also directed all departments and the institution to file counters and posted the matter to July 3 for further hearing.
Concerns for Students
Questioning the institution about the fate of students if the buildings collapse, the court advised considering shifting students willing to pursue free education to nearby government institutions to ensure their studies are not disrupted.
Petition and Allegations
The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Vijay Gopal, who submitted satellite images of the lake and its surroundings, alleging inaction by authorities despite multiple complaints. During the Thursday hearing, conducted in three phases, the judge insisted on knowing from HYDRAA and other agencies how such large constructions in the middle of the lake went unnoticed from 2005 to date.
Judge's Queries
“Why has HYDRAA not acted on these structures? If you have issued notices, why have you not acted against them? You go and fence lands wherever you want, even in matters sub judice before the court, while knowing very well that this institution is in a waterbody as per the preliminary notification. What steps have you taken so far?” the judge asked, noting that authorities initiated proceedings only after the court took up the matter.
The judge also pulled up the education department for granting permissions. When counsels for HMDA, Education, Irrigation, and Revenue sought time, the judge remarked, “Does it not appear to your naked eyes that these structures exist in the waterbody or not?”
Dig at HYDRAA Chief
Taking a dig at the HYDRAA chief, who also chairs the Lake Protection Committee, the judge asked, “What have you done when such a huge unauthorised structure exists in the waterbody? Why special treatment to only one institution?”
Noticing counsels were not properly assisted, the judge asked how construction progressed without permissions, who issued the occupancy certificate, how water and electricity connections were provided, and how effluents were managed. Miffed at evasive responses, the judge said, “You are not informing whether they have permission or not. Why are the concerned authorities not giving proper responses?”
Supreme Court Precedent
Citing a Supreme Court judgment on bulldozer actions, the judge pointed out that if structures lack permissions, no prior notice is required before action. The judge also observed that structural stability of the disputed construction is a matter of technical feasibility. While authorities should have acted from the initial construction stage, “it is striking to note that over all these years, from the initial stage of construction till completion, the authorities did not take any steps to verify whether the constructions had valid permissions or not,” the judge said, adjourning the hearing.
