Multiple Pleas In Telangana High Court Challenge Demolition Action Involving HYDRAA- Agency Tasked With Protecting Land, Lakes

Over the past two weeks, the Telangana High Court has been hearing matters challenging demolition orders, issued by the state authorities on the ground that the constructions in question were "unauthorised" or were made by encroaching the "Full Tank Level" or "buffer zone" of the water bodies around it.  

Apart from challenging the demolition notice issued by the concerned state authorities seeking that it be set aside, the petitioners further sought directions to the concerned authorities including 'Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency' (HYDRAA) restraining it from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession of the property as well as from taking any coercive action. The properties in question include a convention centre and even a farmhouse. In most of these matters, the petitioners challenged the demolition notices/action by authorities on the ground that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing, going against the principles of Natural Justice.

These petitions brought into scrutiny the alleged actions of the newly minted HYDRAA–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). 

For instance, in a matter listed on August 21 pertaining to the demolition of a farmhouse, the petitioner had contended before a single judge bench of Justice K Lakshman that on August 14, concerned officials of respondents 2 (Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and ICAD Department) and 3 (Superintending Engineer) visited the property and "threatened" the petitioner stating that the farmhouse is in the Full Tank Level (FTL) of Osman Sagar Lake, without any notice or intimation. (Pradeep Reddy Badvelu And State of Telangana and Others). 

For context the term 'full tank level' denotes the maximum level a water body can reach. 

The petitioner alleged that the officials had "promised" to return to the farm house property along with the officials of the 6th respondent i.e., HYDRAA. The petitioner claimed that the respondent authorities (R3 to R6)–the concerned Superintending Engineer, District Collector, the Mandal revenue officer and HYDRAA are trying to demolish the subject Farmhouse without following the procedure laid down by law.

Meanwhile Additional Advocate General Mohd. Imran Khan on instructions, pointed to the government order (GO) of July 19 on the establishment of HYDRAA. He submitted that Respondent 3 to 6 will follow the procedure laid down under government order and also relevant Acts and Rules while taking action against illegal encroachments and unauthorized constructions. He further sought time to file a counter as well as preliminary/final notification of any earmarking the subject property under FTL.

After considering the arguments the high court in its order directed:

"In the meanwhile, 6th respondent (HYDRAA) shall take steps strictly in accordance with law and procedure laid down under the said G.O. while taking action against the petitioner. 6th respondent shall also furnish the details of the action taken by it along with counter as to the number of structures demolished by following the procedure laid down".

Justice Lakshman said that while initiating action against illegal encroachments HYDRAA shall consider the "prima facie title of the illegal encroachers" and the persons who made unauthorized constructions; the permissions obtained by them from various authorities including GHMC, Municipalities and Gram Panchayats etc.

Asking the HYDRAA to follow the procedure laid down in the July 19 order so that citizens confidence in state is restored, Justice Lakshman emphasized:

"6th respondent shall not show any discrimination between owners of small extents of land i.e. 60 to 100 sq. yards and One Acre and above. 6th respondent shall follow the procedure laid down under the subject G.O. 6th respondent has to take steps by following due procedure laid down under the aforesaid G.O. so as to enable the citizens to repose confidence on the State". 

The matter is next kept on September 12.

HYDRAA and its scope

As per a July 19 Government Order (G.O.MS.No.99) issued by the Telangana Government announcing the creation of HYDRAA, the agency is responsible for "planning, organizing, coordinating and implementing" the measures for preparedness and prevention of urban disasters, for coordination with other State and National agencies for prompt response and rescue operations in any disaster situation or disaster that may arise in this region.

The agency has three main arms–an Asset Protection Wing, Disaster Management Wing and Logistics Support Wing.

Under the first the agency is responsible for protecting assets of Local Bodies and Government such as parks, layout open spaces, playgrounds, lakes, nalas (drainage channel), land parcels, roads, carriageways, footpaths, etc from encroachments. It is also responsible for removing lake encroachments in coordination with Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), other local bodies, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Irrigation department, Revenue department, etc. 

This wing is also tasked with coordinating with local police for Asset Protection and necessary enforcement and to inspect private premises for building and town planning regulation or remove dilapidated structures endangering public safety, whenever such requests are received from government agencies like ULBS (urban local bodies), UDAS (urban development authorities) and planning authorities.

"In exercise of such powers, the HYDRAA authorities shall be deemed to be working under such ULBS, UDA and planning authorities, under the relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations of ULIBS, UDA and planning authorities. To take penal action on the violaftions in connection with advertisements which are in deviation or not authorized vis-a-vis the permissions granted by the concerned Local Bodies and shared on real time database. In exercise of such powers the HYDRAA authorities shall be deemed to be working under such ULBs under the relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations of ULBS," the GO states. 

This wing is also responsible for "any other enforcement work" as entrusted by the Government from time to time. 

The responsibilities of the second wing includes taking up of Disaster response and relief work by Disaster Response Force (DRF) of HYDRAA in case of any disaster / emergency. The third wing is responsible for staff recruitment, drafting and other service matters, office procedures and office administration, procurements and logistics for operations etc. 

Other functions of the agency includes traffic management and co-ordinating with other departments. 

Further, whenever HYDRAA is required to "exercise penal or regulatory powers vested with other relevant Authorities", it may coordinate and function along with such Authorities "or shall entrust relevant powers and responsibilities to HYDRAA" in accordance with the procedure established under relevant Acts/Rules, as the case may be.

Prior to HYDRAA's creation, what has the high court said on protection of water bodies from encroachment

The Telangana High Court has passed multiple directions for preservation and conversation of waterbodies in matters that were taken up suo-motu and in public interest litigations filed by concerned citizens and activists who have been pressing the issue of protection and preservation of waterbodies before the court, even prior to the creation of the State of Telangana.

In 2007, a writ petition was initiated before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that the court direct the State authorities to remove encroachment from the buffer zone of 13 lakes within the city of Hyderabad.

Meanwhile on December 16, 2023, the high court suo motu initiated a Public Interest Litigation for the preservation of Durgum Cheruvu Lake after taking note of a news report. During the hearing the high court had orally called for an "out of box approach" to deal with the issue.

The high court orally said, "We know what you will do, you will file a report saying there is no encroachment and no action is required. Immediately you have taken corrective action.. don't want the Court to take cognizance. We are surprised at the way you are trying to defend. It's a public cause. The approach has to be different. Do your officers have the guts to take action? Tell us. Please sit down. Don't object to everything. We have not even said anything yet. You are not capable of defending the interest of the people of Hyderabad. You are so eager to defend the officer, you should have welcomed this and come up with suggestions. In every case, you file a status report and say everything is okay. Something out of the box needs to be done".

In this hearing, the high court also appointed Senior advocate Vedula Srinivas as the amicus curie in the matter and requested the senior counsel to suggest names of 'independent individuals who cannot be influenced' for the constitution of an expert body.

Thereafter a joint committee was constituted by the court to suggest recommendations to for the preservation of lakes and waterbodies within the State. The committee filed a report in February with multiple suggestions, including demarcating the FTL (full tank) levels, buffer zones, etc. fence all lakes and installation of CCTV cameras. The court has also been informed that over 100 illegal constructions had been taken within the FTL and Bufferzone of the lake and suggested to check the same. The State authorities were directed to comply with the suggestion of the Committee.

On April 19 this year, the Court yet again took suo motu cognizance of another matter that aimed to take action against encroachment on banks of rivers. The court noted that encroachments directly contributed to the rise in floods witnessed by Hyderabad in the recent years.

All the writs/public interest litigations are still pending for the action taken report of the State in compliance of the long-term suggestions for lake protection. Notably these matters have been tagged the matters initiated for the protection of the Durgum Cheruvu Lake (wherein over over 100 illegal constructions were made around the lake) along with the matters challenging the demolitions/demolitions notices.

While these matters have been ongoing, the state government announced the creation of HYDRAA last month which among other functions seeks to protect lakes in TUCR from encroachment, as well as oversee disaster management. 

Pleas claiming demolition orders were passed without hearing petitioners and HYDRAA's alleged actions

Shortly after the HYDRAA was established, the high court witnessed a string of petitions filed challenging the demolition notices issued by the state authorities as well as the alleged "coercive action" taken or threatened to the taken by the authorities against them. 

• Keshav Kumar Agarwal and Others And State of Telangana and Others 
  

On August 22, a plea filed by 10 petitioners was heard by a single judge bench of Justice K Lakshman seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities in "threatening" to demolish the property in question–a function hall, without any intimation as arbitrary and illegal.

The plea further sought a direction to the authorities including the HYDRAA not to "interfere" with the petitioners' "peaceful possession and enjoyment" of land without following the due process of law. In the interim plea, the petitioners sought a direction to restrain the respondents from taking any "coercive" steps against the land in question–including demolition, attempts or threats of demolition. 

In this matter, Respondent 6–concerned Tahsildar issued a notice under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act stating that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of government land. The petitioners thereafter moved the high court claiming that no opportunity was granted to them to explain themselves. The high court had in its earlier order asked R 6 to consider the petitioners explanation, afford them any opportunity and pass a "reasoned order" as per law, completing the exercise in 4 weeks. 

The petitioners thereafter moved the high court again claiming that the respondent 6 has not issued any notice, and is not conducting any enquiry. They claimed that respondents 7-11 which includes the HYDRAA are visiting the petitioners property and threatening them with demolition. 

Meanwhile the State referred to Section 405 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act to contend that the commissioner has the power to remove certain structures which contravenes the Act.

The petitioners also contended that HYDRAA (respondent 8) has no jurisdiction to take action against the petitioners pointing to the government order of July 19. To this the State submitted that thought the subject function hall is outside the ORR it is in Kotwalguda village and the village is extended to two sides of the ORR (outer ring road); hence HYDRAA would have jurisdiction. 

Justice Lakshman referred to its order of August 21 passed a day earlier in the farmhouse matter and said that petitioners in the present matter are standing on the same footing as the petitioner in the earlier plea, and are hence entitled to same relief "to maintain parity". 

The court thereafter directed the respondent authorities, "particularly respondent 8" i.e. HYDRAA to take action "strictly" as per the procedure laid down in the July 19 government order. The court further asked the respondents to obtain a preliminary/final notification earmarking the subject property under FTL (full tank level). 

"Thereafter they shall take action in accordance with law," the high court said further asking HYDRAA to consider certain aspects mentioned in the court's August 21 order (in Pradeep Reddy Badvelu And State of Telangana and Others) while initiating action against the petitioners. 

• M Narsimha Raju And State of Telangana and others And Batch 
  

On Thursday (August 29) while hearing a batch of seven petitions related to demolition action across Hyderabad involving HYDRAA, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao passed a common order after noting that pleas pertained to an August 3 notice issued to the petitioners under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar.

In its interim relief application, the petitioners in each of the petitions had sought a direction to the authorities including HYDRAA to "stop demolition or removal of structures".

The petitioners in the matters contended that that neither any notice not an opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before directing the removal of encroachments /structures raised by the petitioners.

Meanwhile the State represented by the Advocate General argued that the impugned notices issued under Section 23 of the Act be treated as show cause notices and the petitioners be granted the liberty to submit the response in a "fixed time period". The authority will then after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, shall proceed with the matter as per law, the AG added.

The bench however observed that the petitioners had not been granted an opportunity of hearing in the matter. It said, "Though the communications dated 03.08.2024 were styled as notices, however, in the operative portion of the same, the petitioners have been directed to remove the structures/encroachments within the Full Tank Level. Thus, the aforesaid issue has been determined without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners".

Taking note of the "peculiar facts of the case" the bench directed that the August 3 notice issued by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar under Section 23 of the Act shall be treated as show cause notices. It said that the petitioners shall file their reply to the aforesaid notices within a period of two weeks and the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners will proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Making clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitions, the bench went on to dispose of the same.

• M/s. N. Convention And State of Telangana and Others

On August 24, a plea was heard by a single judge bench Justice T. Vinod Kumar by a convention centre linked to actor Nagarjuna Akkineni seeking a direction to stop its demolition.

It was contended that it was only after the authorities commenced the demolition work at the centre, in particular HYDRAA, a "speaking order" dated August 8 was served on the petitioner on August 24 at 9:04 am when in fact the demolition work began at the petitioner's premises at 7:38am that day.

It was also contended that the demolition activity commenced despite a status quo order issued by the respondent no. 3–Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA & UD) Department (State of Telangana) thereby violating the order.

Meanwhile, the Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Office of the Additional Advocate General contended that the authorities had issued a show cause notice on July 30 and thereafter a speaking order was passed holding that the construction made by the petitioner was "unauthorised". It was also contended that respect to "construction made by encroaching on FTL (full tank level)/buffer zones" no notice was required in terms of section 405(a) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act.

The high court however noted that there was a dispute regarding whether or not the notice was served on the petitioner and directed the state authorities to "demonstrate the manner and mode of service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner before passing the speaking order".

Further, after noting that the demolition was being conducted despite the Status Quo issued by MA&UD department, the high court said, "Thus this court is of the prima facie view that the respondent-authorities ought not to have initiated proceedings during the subsistence of the status quo order passed by Respondent no.3 (MA&UD department) authority with regard to the illegal and unauthorised construction made in the appeal filed by the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there shall be an order of status quo existing as on today maintain by all the parties concerned".

• L Urmila Devi v State of Telangana and Others

During the hearing of a plea listed on August 28 (Wednesday) challenging an August 3 demolition notice issued by the Tahsildar, when the counsel for the petitioner said that it seemed like the "Season of Lakes" had started, Justice K Lakshman in a lighter vein orally said, “It's not Lakes Season sir, its Demolition Season”.

The high court in its order observed that the August 3 notice "prima facie" is a "final notice" and the petitioner was not even put to notice and no opportunity was afforded. Noting that the matter required examination the high court directed, "therefore, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned notice...dated 03.08.2024 of respondent 6 List on 05.09.2024..."

Click Here To Download Order