High Court Expresses Strong Displeasure
The High Court on Thursday criticized Hydra for its handling of demolitions and warned that if it violates G.O. 99, the court may revoke the order and shut down the organization. The court noted that some individuals were making biased allegations to obstruct Hydra's work, emphasizing that demolitions should not be conducted based on such claims. It questioned the legitimacy of determining rights merely through documents and challenged Hydra's authority in such matters.
Justice K. Lakshman reviewed the case following a petition by A. Praveen, who alleged that his shed in Muthangi village, Patancheru mandal, Sangareddy district, was demolished without proper verification of his land records. Hydra Inspector Rajasekhar personally appeared in court, complying with the court's directives.
Dispute Over Land and Permissions
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that Hydra acted based on a complaint by the Gayatri Members Association, which claimed that the construction was taking place on park land. However, it was stated that the Panchayat had granted construction permissions on November 15, 2023.
Hydra's lawyer, Katika Ravinder Reddy, countered that the permissions were obtained by threatening the Panchayat Secretary, who later revoked them. He maintained that Hydra took action only after verifying all relevant documents. He also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the ‘Bulldozer Case,’ which mandates demolishing structures obstructing roads.
Court Questions Hydra’s Actions
The judge expressed frustration, noting that despite issuing over 20 similar orders, petitions continued to arise. The court questioned the claim that the Panchayat Secretary was threatened and raised concerns about why the permissions were revoked in 2025 when they had been granted in 2023. Additionally, the court asked why the Gayatri Members Association did not raise concerns before Hydra intervened.
The judge criticized Hydra’s approach, stating that the civil court, not Hydra, should determine land rights. Further, it questioned how the petitioner was labeled an occupant and on what basis Hydra made such decisions. The judge clarified that he was not defending the petitioner but was concerned about the authorities not following legal procedures.
Court Orders Status Quo and Further Investigation
The court ordered that the current status of the petitioner’s land be maintained and directed Hydra to submit a detailed counter affidavit. The hearing has been adjourned to March 5.
Tags Cloud
