TG High Court pulls up HYDRAA Commissioner Ranganath
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Monday expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath in connection with a private land dispute, observing that the filing of three contempt petitions on the same issue was a matter of serious concern. The court questioned why its orders were being repeatedly violated and reminded the government and its officials that they were not above the law.
The court said judicial orders must be implemented as long as they remain in force. It also observed that the aggrieved party in the present case was not the petitioner but the court itself.
The observations came while Justice Juvvadi Anil Kumar heard a contempt petition filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt Ltd challenging HYDRAA’s demolition drive carried out on July 17 in a 40-acre property in Survey Nos. 1 and 2 of Lothkunta village in Malkajgiri mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district.
Counsel for the petitioner, M. Harish Kumar, argued that HYDRAA officials demolished the compound wall and other structures despite subsisting court orders. He told the court that two contempt petitions on the same issue were already pending but officials continued with the demolition.
The counsel further alleged that officials ignored court orders shown to them, acted against the petitioner, registered a police case and kept the petitioner at the police station until evening.
Reacting to the submissions, Justice Anil Kumar warned that the court would be compelled to secure the commissioner’s presence if required. Following the warning, A.V. Ranganath appeared before the court in person at around 6.30 pm.
Addressing the commissioner, the judge asked whether violating court orders had become a habit and whether contempt of court had become routine. He said judicial orders could not be treated lightly and stressed that every official action must remain within the framework of law.
Court seeks explanation for demolition despite interim protection
The judge questioned why the authorities proceeded with demolition despite clear orders restraining interference with private property. He also asked how officials entered private land while claiming to protect government property.
Observing that HYDRAA was now claiming the land belonged to the Defence Department, the judge asked why the department had not been made a party to the proceedings. He further remarked that acting contrary to orders passed by a Division Bench amounted to interference with the judicial process.
Appearing for HYDRAA, Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy submitted that 119 acres in Survey No. 243 were government land as per the General Land Register and sought time to complete the survey and demarcation.
The judge noted that similar assurances had been given earlier and questioned why they had not been implemented. The court also asked how other officials intervened before assurances made by the district collector were fulfilled.
The High Court also faulted the authorities for not supplying a copy of the First Information Report to the petitioner and directed them to provide it immediately. The court ordered the respondents to file an affidavit and adjourned the matter to Tuesday.
