The Telangana High Court has strongly rebuked the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA), stating that its officials appear to consider themselves "a class apart" and warning that they cannot place themselves above the law or act beyond their legal authority. Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti made the remarks while hearing contempt petitions filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Ltd.
Court's Observations on HYDRAA's Conduct
Justice Jukanti observed that HYDRAA officials are not "super cops of governance" and cannot act beyond the purview of the law. The court was critical of the agency for entering a private property at Lothkunta, Alwal, despite earlier court orders protecting the landowner's possession. The judge emphasized that HYDRAA, as part of the state administration, remains subject to the rule of law and cannot assume extraordinary powers.
Flagrant Violation of Court Orders
The court noted that HYDRAA's actions constituted a "flagrant violation" of its orders. "It is apparent that the HYDRAA officials are of the notion that they are a class apart. I am afraid they are not so and they cannot be; they are a part of governance and remain so," the judge stated while disposing of the contempt cases.
Limited Mandate of HYDRAA
The court clarified that HYDRAA's mandate is restricted to protecting public assets such as roads, drains, water bodies, parks, and other government properties. Its authority cannot extend beyond the boundaries prescribed by law. The court further ruled that HYDRAA officials cannot intervene in disputes involving private property merely based on a complaint from a private organization.
Background of the Case
The contempt cases arose from allegations that HYDRAA officials entered disputed land and interfered with the petitioner's peaceful possession, despite the state government having suffered setbacks in a writ appeal, civil suit, and first appeal concerning the property. HYDRAA claimed that its officials visited the site after receiving a representation from the 'Society to Save Rocks' organization.
Court's Rejection of Justification
Rejecting any justification for overstepping legal limits, the court observed: "Officers may be enthusiastic to act in the interest of the state, but they have to be within the four corners of law. Any deviation from law would not only be an overreach but would also invite the wrath of the courts."
Breach of Undertaking
The court also held that HYDRAA's actions amounted to a breach of an undertaking previously given before the court that orders in the long-running land dispute would be complied with. After recording an undertaking from HYDRAA's counsel that officials would not enter the property in future, the court directed the agency and its personnel not to violate the assurance given to the court.
Restraining Order
The court restrained HYDRAA from entering the land and from disturbing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, before closing the contempt proceedings. Emphasizing the binding nature of assurances given on behalf of the state, the court maintained: "It has no hesitation to hold that if any of the law officers of the court undertake that state authorities would comply with orders passed by a court of law, it would bind 'every department', unless one of the departments has a grievance valid in law."
