`Cannot act beyond judiciary’s purview’: Telangana HC slams HYDRAA, seeks update on Gandipet land order
The petitioners alleged that HYDRAA had demolished the compound wall surrounding land falling within the court’s jurisdiction and sought directions restraining the agency from further interference.
By Newsmeter Network
Hyderabad: Telangana High Court has cautioned HYDRAA against bypassing judicial authority while dealing with government lands.
The court also sought clarification whether it complied with earlier court orders to remove the fencing around a 1,600-square-yard land parcel at Gandipet.
Court questions compliance with earlier orders
During the hearing on Monday, Justice N.P. Shravan Kumar sought to know whether HYDRAA had implemented the directions issued last week regarding the removal of the fence around the disputed land.
Expressing concern over the agency’s conduct, the judge reminded that constitutional courts exist to safeguard government properties and that bodies like HYDRAA cannot act beyond the purview of the judiciary.
The court also pointed out that hundreds of petitions concerning HYDRAA are pending and asked the agency to furnish details on how many counters have been filed and how many are yet to be submitted.
It further directed officials to explain why there has been a delay in assisting with the filing of counters.
Petition by landowners
The matter came up following a petition filed by Rahul Yadav and six others from Narsingi.
The petitioners alleged that HYDRAA had demolished the compound wall surrounding land falling within the court’s jurisdiction and sought directions restraining the agency from further interference.
Appearing for HYDRAA, counsel submitted that fencing had been erected only around government land and not on the petitioners’ property. However, the petitioners’ counsel argued that the fencing obstructed access to their land.
Court expresses displeasure over delay
When HYDRAA sought additional time to file its counter affidavit, the court expressed displeasure, questioning whether its previous orders were being followed in letter and spirit.
The judge directed the agency’s counsel to clearly state whether the court’s instructions had been implemented. The hearing was subsequently adjourned for further consideration.
