Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Tuesday took strong objection to HYDRAA fencing lands while claiming them as govt property, questioning whether the agency considers itself bound by Supreme Court rulings on “bulldozer justice”. Justice NV Shravan Kumar asked HYDRAA’s counsel, “Doesn’t HYDRAA want to follow the principles of natural justice laid down in the bulldozer judgment?”The observations were made during the hearing of a petition filed by NRI businessman Prasad N Tanjerla. The petitioner alleged that the agency demolished a shed on his 1,351-square-yard plot in Gudimalkapur and fenced the area, in violation of court decrees passed in 2000 and 2003, as well as a judgment delivered in Nov 2026.Directing the agency to remove the fence and ordering the petitioner to maintain status quo, the judge censured HYDRAA, remarking that acting without proper background verification amounted to an “absolute abuse of the process of law” and “clear contempt of court”. The judge noted that the agency appeared to be “erratically fencing” lands without sufficient material to justify its actions.Questioning how HYDRAA determines whether lands are govt-owned or sub judice, the judge observed that property is often acquired through a lifetime of savings. He noted that the agency frequently acts without verifying whether the lands are notified govt properties, public spaces such as parks, or included in prohibited lists. The judge remarked that even if the agency has the authority to fence such lands, it must possess supporting evidence. “Otherwise, it’s like you are doing it on your own. Can that be accepted? You went much beyond the courts,” he stated.The court also addressed allegations that HYDRAA officials seized visitors’ mobile phones during interactions at their office, asking why the agency was making people suffer in this manner. In response, HYDRAA’s counsel dismissed the allegations as “baseless” and urged the court not to form an opinion without giving the agency an opportunity to respond. He assured the court that a counter-affidavit would be filed, citing Supreme Court and high court precedents in its defence.The judge concluded that without proper documentation and complete knowledge of govt land records, the agency should refrain from fencing and remove existing fences. He clarified that the court would direct the agency to take possession only if it is conclusively proven that the lands are encroached upon. The matter was adjourned to March 3.
