Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court condemned the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) for its arbitrary and unlawful actions, likening its officials to “dacoits.” The court’s strong remarks came during a hearing on a writ petition filed by Alagari Praveen, a resident of Patancheru mandal in Sangareddy district, who accused HYDRAA of illegally demolishing a tin shed on his property without proper inquiry or notice.
Praveen claimed ownership of the disputed land, presenting a registered sale deed and conversion approval from the tahsildar dated July 5, 2023. He also obtained building permission from the Muthangi gram panchayat on November 15, 2023. However, the Gayathri Members Association alleged that Praveen was constructing on land designated for a park. Following a court order on December 12, 2024, the Tellapur municipality commissioner was directed to investigate the matter.
Despite this, HYDRAA Inspector Rajasekhar issued a notice on January 4, 2025, seeking documents related to the property. Praveen submitted his explanation on January 7, but HYDRAA proceeded with the demolition without a hearing or cancellation order.
Justice Lakshman expressed outrage over HYDRAA’s actions, questioning the agency’s haste and disregard for due process. “What is the hurry? HYDRAA cannot change the city overnight. Your officials proceed with demolitions even on weekends without proper inquiries. In one case, a compound wall was demolished at 4 am. Who acts in such a manner? Only dacoits do this,” the judge remarked.
He further criticized HYDRAA for causing panic among citizens and failing to provide adequate time for property owners to respond. “Without cancellation orders or properly conducting inquiries, you proceed with demolitions. People are panicking because of your actions,” Justice Lakshman added.
The judge warned that if HYDRAA continues its high-handed approach, the court may stay GO 99, the government order that established the agency. “Every time your officials claim that this is the last incident. If this continues, the court will stay GO 99. We may need to keep a record of HYDRAA’s repeated mistakes,” he stated.
Praveen’s counsel highlighted several irregularities, including the absence of a survey number in the complaint and the fact that it was signed by the Sarpanch instead of the panchayat secretary. They also pointed out discrepancies in land records, suggesting that excess land had been sold, leading to false allegations against Praveen.
Additionally, the petitioner alleged that HYDRAA pressured the panchayat secretary to issue a letter against him after the case was filed. Praveen urged the court to allow construction as per the sanctioned plan.
The court extended interim orders, prohibiting further construction until the next hearing. Notices, including personal notices, were issued to the respondents, and the matter was adjourned to March 5.
