HC pulls up HYDRAA for interfering in private property case

Justice Juvvadi Anil Kumar said HYDRAA officials were not "super cops" and must function strictly within the limits prescribed by law.

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has held that HYDRAA’s interference in a private property dispute amounted to a violation of court orders, despite assurances given earlier by government counsel that authorities would not intervene in the matter.

Justice Juvvadi Anil Kumar observed that assurances given before the court by the Advocate General’s office, Additional Advocate General’s office, government pleaders or standing counsels are binding on the State government and all its departments. Any violation of such undertakings would be the responsibility of the officials concerned and could attract contempt proceedings, the court said.

The judge noted that it was not acceptable for one government department to claim that directions issued by a court to another department did not apply to it. Various departments and wings of the government are expected to function in coordination and comply with judicial orders, he observed.

The remarks came while hearing two contempt petitions filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited, which alleged that HYDRAA officials were continuing to interfere in its private property despite assurances given to the High Court in earlier writ and contempt proceedings.

Petitioner’s arguments

Counsel for the petitioner argued that both a civil court and the High Court had recognised the land as private property and rejected the government’s claims over it. Despite these rulings, authorities were allegedly continuing to intervene under the banner of HYDRAA, prompting the company to approach the court with contempt petitions.

Appearing for HYDRAA, counsel submitted that officials had visited the site after receiving a representation from the vice-president of the NGO Society to Save Rocks.

Court cites GHMC Act

After examining the records and hearing both sides, the court held that HYDRAA, constituted under the GHMC Act, could not exceed the limits of its statutory jurisdiction. The judge observed that the agency had no authority to interfere in the petitioner’s private property merely on the basis of a complaint from an organisation that was not a party to the earlier proceedings.

The court cautioned HYDRAA against taking such actions in future and remarked that its officials were not “super cops” and must function strictly within the framework of the law.

Recording an undertaking by HYDRAA’s counsel that the agency would not interfere in the petitioner’s property affairs in future, the High Court closed the contempt petitions.