‘War-like situation’: Telangana High Court slams HYDRAA, orders status quo in Ailapur farmhouse row

Weather ePaper Today’s Paper Journalism of Courage Home ePaper India Cities UPSC Premium Entertainment Politics Sports World Explained Opinion Business Lifestyle Tech Subscribe Sign In TrendingUPSC OfferIPL 2026US NewsPuzzles & GamesLegal NewsFresh TakeHealthResearch🎙️ Podcast Advertisement function checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript() { if (window.jQuery) { // jQuery is loaded, include your script jQuery(document).ready(function($) { // Your existing script for checking window width if (window.innerWidth) var page_w = window.innerWidth; else if (document.all) var page_w = document.body.clientWidth; if (page_w > 1024) { $(".add-left, .add-right").show(); } else { $(".add-left, .add-right").hide(); } }); } else { // jQuery is not loaded, check again after 0.2 seconds setTimeout(checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript, 200); } } // Initial call to the function checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript(); NewsLegal'War-like situation': Telangana High Court slams HYDRAA, orders status quo in Ailapur farmhouse row ‘War-like situation’: Telangana High Court slams HYDRAA, orders status quo in Ailapur farmhouse row The case pertains to the demolition of a century-old structure by HYDRAA on farmland owned by the 98-year-old petitioner.  Written by: Rahul V Pisharody4 min readHyderabadApr 14, 2026 09:39 AM IST The Telangana High Court expressed disbelief that a massive structure could be demolished at 4 am without any prior notice. (File Photo) Make us preferred source on Google Whatsapp twitter Facebook Reddit PRINT The Telangana High Court Monday expressed strong displeasure over the functioning of the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), comparing its recent demolition activities to a “war-like situation” which “cannot be countenanced.” Justice Vijaysen Reddy’s observations came during a hearing on the demolition of a massive building in Ailapur village, Patancheru Mandal, where the petitioner claimed it was a farmhouse built with a sanctioned plan, while the government alleged it was an unauthorised structure on its land. The high court ordered a status quo on the subject property and issued a stern directive restricting HYDRAA’s future activities. The agency has been ordered, “not to undertake any activity relating to demolition or removal of unauthorised construction at any place/site, except for removal of encroachments and the restoration of water bodies, NALAs, parks and public roads.” The case pertains to the demolition of a century-old structure by HYDRAA on farmland owned by the 98-year-old petitioner, M A Shareef. ‘High-handed action of HYDRAA’ Senior Counsel L Ravichander, led by Advocate Deepak Misra, contended that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner by any of the respondent authorities, including HYDRAA, before carrying out the demolition. He submitted that the respondents’ allegation that the building was constructed without a sanctioned plan is, on the face of the record, incorrect. The court expressed disbelief that a massive structure could be demolished at 4 am without any prior notice. While the Additional Advocate General, Md Imran Khan, argued that the petitioner was attempting to grab over a thousand acres of government land under the guise of a 2009 decree, the court noted that even for unauthorised structures, the principles of natural justice must be followed. “Things could have been in place if action had been taken at the inception… Instead, the authorities, having blindfolded themselves and having allowed a huge structure to come up, now complain before the Court that the construction was made without any sanctioned plan,” Justice Reddy said. Noting that “HYDRAA takes pride in claiming that it has restored several water bodies in and around Hyderabad”, Justice Reddy added, “The fact that hundreds of cases have been filed in this Court complaining high-handed action of HYDRAA is a sufficient indication that actions of HYDRAA, to say the least, are not in the proper direction.” ‘Created hype of the situation’ Despite being in existence for a year, the court found that HYDRAA lacks a clear legal framework or standard procedure and “it is still not known whether HYDRAA is following the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or the Municipalities Act.” “On seeing the photographs and the video clippings, this Court is of prima facie opinion that HYDRAA is not following any standard procedures,” Justice Reddy said. Referring to the demolition of the subject farmhouse, Justice Reddy said, “The manner in which the HYDRAA officials assembled at the site and created hype of the situation… is akin to a war-like situation, and the same cannot be countenanced.” The court concluded that no coercive action regarding unauthorised constructions, internal roads, or compound walls shall be taken until HYDRAA places its “standard operating procedures or guidelines in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, the Municipalities Act, or other applicable regulations/rules” before the court. Rahul V Pisharody is Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting for IE on various news developments from Telangana since 2019. He is currently reporting on legal matters from the Telangana High Court. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of city reporters, district correspondents, other centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. ... Read More