HYDRAA Demolition Drive Following Due Process: State Tells Telangana High Court, No Interim Relief In PIL

The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (October 23) declined to grant interim relief in a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to restrain the 'Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency' (HYDRAA)' from demolishing any buildings without following due procedure. 

The high court did so after noting the State's submission that due process was being followed by the authorities. 

The interim relief application moved in the PIL sought an immediate action to the protect the constitutional rights of the affected residents and to ensure that government adheres to the rule of law, treating all citizens equally and fairly, pending disposal of the writ petition. It was prayed that demolitions be ordered only after following due process of law i.e., issuance of notice.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sreenivas Rao during the hearing noted that the petitioner in his affidavit had relied solely on social media posts and news articles and had also admitted to never having submitted any representation to the arrayed official respondents before approaching the Court.

Nonetheless, the bench said that the petition would be entertained due to the greater issue involved. 

The bench took on record the statement of the Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, assuring the court that due process was being followed, pursuant to which the bench said that no interim orders would be required.

The court thereafter disposed of the interim relief application and the matter was listed after three weeks to enable the respondent authorities to file their response to the plea. 

During the hearing the petitioner Dr. K.A. Paul contended that he was not against HYDRAA and only prayed that due process be followed while demolitions were being carried out. It was alleged that nearly 482 houses were demolished without providing alternative accommodation and without as much as the issuance of a notice. Additional humanitarian grounds were also raised.

The petitioner also relied on the judgement rendered in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, wherein the Supreme Court directed against demolition of houses of convicted persons, without the prior permission of the apex Court.

Meanwhile appearing for the State Additional Advocate General Imran Khan contended that due process was being followed and that the Court had taken note of the same in various other matters.

Among various reliefs prayed for, the PIL sought a direction to restrain HYDRAA from demolishing any buildings without following the procedure established by law until a proper survey is conducted, identifying all encroachments and properties to be demolished in accordance with the law. 

It further sought that demolitions are carried out only after issuing due notice to affected individuals and allowing reasonable time of "one month" for vacating the premises with opportunities to appeal the demolition decisions.

The PIL sought a direction to the respondent authorities to formulate a comprehensive and fair resettlement and rehabilitation plan ensuring that affected individuals receive adequate compensation and alternative housing before any demolition is carried out

It further sought an an impartial investigation into the "selective demolitions and the failure" of HYDRAA to act against high profile properties. It sought a declaration that any amendments proposed to justify HYDRAAs actions during the pendency of the matter or other pending cases are unconstitutional and not applicable for the houses already constructed and being lived, after obtaining due permissions from concerned authorities. 

It also sought a direction for the government to enact comprehensive legislation to protect lakes and common properties across the nation.

For context, HYDRAA is a "unified dedicated" agency established to manage urban disasters, asset protection which includes protect government land (and land of local bodies) as well as water bodies including lakes from encroachment in the Telangana Core Urban Region (TCUR). TCUR comprises of the entire Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and areas of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Medchal Malkajgiri and Sangareddy districts upto ORR (outer ring road).

Case title: Dr K A Paul Kilari Anand Paul vs. The State of Telangana

Case no.: WP(PIL) 41 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: party in person

Counsel for respondents: Addl Advocate General, Sr. Counsel Imran Khan, assisted by Adv. Madhuri Kuchadi