The Telangana High Court on Thursday sought to ascertain whether any disciplinary action had been initiated against government officials who allegedly approved illegal constructions and sanctioned civic amenities like water and electricity connections for structures that were subsequently demolished by the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) on grounds of being illegally built on government land.
Court Hearing on Patelguda Demolitions
A vacation bench comprising Justice Nagesh Bheempaka raised the query while hearing petitions filed by over 20 residents of Patelguda village in Ameenpur, on the outskirts of Hyderabad. The petitioners alleged that HYDRAA demolished their houses in September 2024 without issuing any prior notice, leaving them homeless.
The petitioners informed the court that a survey conducted later, pursuant to directions from the High Court, had concluded that the lands in question were patta lands (privately owned). Despite this, municipal authorities were allegedly refusing to grant building permissions. The petitioners sought directions from the court to the authorities to issue the required permissions.
Counsel's Arguments
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel R. Chandrashekar Reddy argued that the residents had earlier secured protection from the High Court after repeated attempts by authorities to evict them from their houses and lands. Despite the court’s protection, HYDRAA allegedly demolished their properties.
“When the petitioners showed court orders, they (HYDRAA) tore them down, saying they are ready to face contempt of court but will not leave the place without demolishing the houses. They demolished the houses without following due process of law nor respecting the High Court’s order,” the counsel said.
He submitted photographs of the demolition and argued that the lands had remained fenced off since then. He further told the court that a survey conducted pursuant to High Court orders had established that the petitioners’ properties were not located on government land. However, when they approached authorities in May 2025 seeking building permissions, their applications were allegedly kept pending without any action.
The counsel also urged the court to direct authorities to remove the fencing around the petitioners’ properties. “There is no action on any official who gave permissions, registered these lands, but the petitioners are enduring never-ending suffering,” alleged the counsel.
Court's Response
The bench directed the respondents to file counters and posted the matter for further hearing on June 15. Recording the submissions, the court adjourned the matter.
