In an interesting development, several colony associations, civic groups and resident welfare associations in Hyderabad are protesting against the Telangana High Court's order directing the removal of A.V. Ranganath, Commissioner of the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA).
The groups have organised public demonstrations in support of the officer, arguing that HYDRAA has reclaimed lakes, roads, and government land from encroachers and should not be weakened because of ongoing litigation. Protesters described the agency as one of the few government bodies willing to take on influential encroachers and urged the state government to continue its anti-encroachment drive without interruption.
The protests followed a series of adverse observations and an order passed by the Telangana High Court. After hearing a batch of contempt petitions relating to alleged violations of court orders during an anti-encroachment exercise at Lothkunta village, Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar passed a detailed order holding that repeated disobedience of judicial directions could not be tolerated. Observing that 63 contempt petitions were pending against Ranganath in his capacity as HYDRAA commissioner, the court directed the state government to relieve him from the post and appoint another officer to head HYDRAA.
In a separate case relating to Bathukammakunta Lake, Justice N.V. Sravan Kumar also came down heavily on the HYDRAA chief, holding that the agency had exceeded the scope of the High Court's interim orders by carrying out works beyond what had been permitted.
The High Court's observations triggered an immediate political response, with Congress leaders rallying behind HYDRAA. Congress MP from Bhongir, Chamala Kiran Kumar Reddy, openly defended the agency, urging the High Court to consider the larger public interest while hearing cases involving HYDRAA. He claimed the agency had protected government assets worth nearly ₹1.5 lakh crore by reclaiming lakes, roads, and public land from encroachers. He warned that weakening the agency or removing Ranganath would only embolden the land mafia. Though he maintained that judicial orders must be respected, he argued that HYDRAA's larger public purpose should not be undermined because of disputes arising in individual cases.
HYDRAA came into existence on July 19, 2024, when the Telangana government converted the erstwhile Vigilance and Enforcement Department into the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency through G.O. Ms. No. 99, retaining Ranganath as its commissioner. Besides protecting public lands such as lakes, nalas, and land earmarked for roads, parks, hospitals, and libraries from encroachment, the agency was later entrusted with urban flooding prevention. In a previous interaction with THE WEEK, Ranganath said Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy had asked him to protect public lands that had long remained neglected.
In the present dispute, Shanta Sriram Constructions has alleged that HYDRAA entered its 40-acre property in Survey Nos. 1 and 2 of Lothkunta village and carried out fencing and demolition despite interim orders of the Telangana High Court. HYDRAA, however, has maintained that its action was aimed at protecting government land and was not in defiance of the court. The commissioner denied that HYDRAA officials entered the disputed property after the interim orders and alleged that the builder had misrepresented facts before the court by claiming land located about three kilometres away from the area where HYDRAA acted. He further alleged that the developer was attempting to encroach upon government land worth nearly ₹10,000 crore. He said the agency would abide by the court's decision on the title dispute. The Telangana High Court is yet to adjudicate the legality of the competing land claims.
In an earlier case relating to the restoration of Bathukammakunta Lake in Amberpet, Justice Kumar also pulled up HYDRAA for allegedly exceeding the limits of the High Court's interim orders. While the court had earlier permitted only limited pre-monsoon works to prevent flooding, it later found that HYDRAA had substantially altered the disputed site by carrying out extensive development works, including permanent structures, despite the pendency of the title dispute. Holding that no public authority is above the law, Justice Kumar held Ranganath guilty of civil contempt. He stressed that even projects undertaken in public interest must strictly comply with judicial directions.
Despite the single-judge bench's order directing the replacement of the HYDRAA commissioner, the Telangana government stood firmly behind Ranganath and decided to challenge the order before a higher judicial forum. Defending the officer, CM Reddy argued that contempt proceedings against public officials are not uncommon when governments undertake large-scale administrative or enforcement measures. He cited the example of former Chief Secretary Somesh Kumar, who, according to the chief minister, had received more than 400 contempt notices during his tenure while implementing government decisions. The CM maintained that such proceedings should not, by themselves, be treated as a measure of an officer's integrity or suitability to continue in office and reiterated that the government would continue to back officials acting in the larger public interest while pursuing legal remedies against adverse court orders.
The debate has since expanded beyond the legality of HYDRAA's actions to the pace at which long-pending land disputes are resolved. In his media interactions, HYDRAA chief Ranganath argued that many of the disputed properties had remained entangled in litigation for years and urged the courts to decide the title disputes expeditiously so that the agency could act with legal certainty. In the Bathukammakunta dispute, HYDRAA appealed against the High Court's contempt order in the Supreme Court in July. The apex court set aside the immediate operation of the contempt finding. It remitted the matter to the High Court to examine whether the gate, fencing, and retaining wall erected by HYDRAA at the disputed site should be allowed to remain. The SC directed the High Court to decide the issue and dispose of the connected civil appeal expeditiously, while making it clear that if HYDRAA's justification was found untenable, the contempt finding could be revived.
The HYDRAA episode has evolved into a larger debate on balancing judicial oversight with effective governance. While the High Court has repeatedly emphasised that no executive agency can function above the law, the government and HYDRAA argue that prolonged pendency of land disputes often leaves public property vulnerable to encroachment and complicates enforcement. HYDRAA chief has several times pointed out that powerful realtors, who bribed the entire system, continue their construction activities despite court stays, and this was a direct criticism of the judiciary. Final adjudication of title disputes would provide legal certainty to all stakeholders—whether the land belongs to private parties or the government—and reduce the scope for repeated contempt proceedings arising from interim orders. Parties aggrieved by such decisions would, in any event, remain free to seek relief before higher judicial fora.
