HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Thursday said constitutional courts cannot be criticised for scrutinising executive actions after records showed that the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) demolished a private compound wall without any direction from the revenue authorities.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar said the case itself answered recent claims that private litigants were misleading the judiciary. Instead, he observed that government authorities and agencies such as HYDRAA had misled the court, diverted judicial proceedings and bypassed court orders.
Calling it an "utter failure" of administration, the judge said departments were making independent decisions without coordination, due diligence or adherence to legal procedure.
The observations came while hearing a petition filed by Pemmasani Sudha Rani.
Petitioner alleges illegal demolition
Sudha Rani alleged that revenue officials and HYDRAA personnel illegally demolished a compound wall and a structure on her property in Plot No. 9, Survey No. 60,
The petition said the High Court had earlier allowed her to construct the compound wall. Despite those directions, HYDRAA officials allegedly entered the property on October 4, 2025. They demolished the compound wall and a watchman's room before trying to dispossess her without prior notice.
During a hearing on July 28, HYDRAA told the court that it acted on the instructions of the Serilingampally tahsildar.
Revenue department contradicts HYDRAA
However, the Serilingampally tahsildar informed the court on Thursday that neither he nor his office had instructed HYDRAA to demolish any structure.
Government counsel for the revenue department, Katram Muralidhar Reddy, said the district collector's office wrote to the commissioner of police on October 3, 2025. The letter sought police protection to remove a few small structures on government land in Survey No. 59. Officials also marked a copy of the communication to HYDRAA.
He clarified that the petitioner's property falls in Survey No. 60, which is private land.
Seeking an explanation, Justice Shravan Kumar asked how HYDRAA concluded that the petitioner's land was adjacent to Survey No. 59. He also questioned whether the agency had verified the records before carrying out the demolition.
HYDRAA's counsel said the agency relied on a communication dated October 1, 2025, allegedly issued by the tahsildar. In response, the judge asked whether officials had served any notice on the petitioner. He also wanted to know why HYDRAA completed the demolition within three days.
The bench further asked whether the district collector had specifically directed the demolition of the petitioner's structures. It also sought to know whether any "outside force pressured you (HYDRAA)" to undertake the action.
Court raises due process concerns
Justice Shravan Kumar said authorities must issue notice and provide an opportunity to respond even if the land belongs to the government.
"What was the necessity of swift action?" the judge asked. He reminded officials that the High Court had already directed them to follow due process. Another question from the bench was whether they had initiated proceedings under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act.
"Is HYDRAA running a parallel executive system or government?" the judge asked.
Expressing concern over repeated instances of alleged disregard for court orders, Justice Shravan Kumar said he fully agreed with the findings of a coordinate bench headed by Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar in contempt cases filed by Shanta Shriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd. That bench had examined HYDRAA's actions on private land despite a High Court status quo order.
"You will do whatever you want. You demolish without following procedure. You do not care about court orders. You either do not check the records from the other side or conduct a survey, and you don't respect court orders. That is why the courts intervene on behalf of the affected party," Justice Shravan Kumar observed.
Without referring to recent public statements on judicial intervention in HYDRAA matters, the judge said the present case clearly showed "who was misleading whom."
"The courts are not misled," Justice Shravan Kumar said. "You cannot talk about institutions. If violations happen, the courts will step in. What are courts meant for?"
Next steps
The High Court directed all respondents to file detailed counters within one week on the demolition. It also ordered the Serilingampally tahsildar to remain present before the court on every hearing date until the petition is disposed of.
This version uses four subheadings and varies sentence openings to satisfy Yoast's "consecutive sentences" check.