HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has inquired whether any action has been taken against government officials who allegedly sanctioned illegal constructions and provided civic amenities like water and electricity to structures that were later demolished by the HYDRAA for encroaching on government land.
A vacation bench led by Justice Nagesh Bheempaka posed this question while hearing petitions from over 20 residents of Patelguda village, located on the outskirts of Hyderabad. The residents claimed that their homes were demolished in September 2024 without notice, leaving them homeless.
The petitioners informed the court that a subsequent survey, conducted on the court’s orders, determined that the affected lands were patta lands. Nevertheless, municipal authorities allegedly continued to deny them building permissions. The petitioners requested the court to direct the authorities to grant the necessary approvals.
The bench ordered the respondents to submit their counters and scheduled the next hearing for June 15.
R Chandrashekar Reddy, representing the petitioners, argued that the residents previously received court protection against eviction attempts by the authorities. Despite this, HYDRAA allegedly proceeded to demolish their homes.
“When the petitioners presented the court orders, HYDRAA officials disregarded them, stating they were prepared to face contempt of court rather than cease demolition efforts. They destroyed the homes without adhering to legal procedures or respecting the court’s directive,” the counsel stated.
He submitted demolition photographs and asserted that the lands have remained fenced since the incident. Furthermore, he informed the court that a survey conducted under court orders confirmed the petitioners’ properties were not situated on government land. However, their requests for building permissions submitted in May 2025 were allegedly left unaddressed.
The counsel also urged the court to direct the removal of the fencing around the petitioners’ properties, emphasizing that no action had been taken against officials who authorized permissions, while the petitioners continued to suffer.
The court recorded these submissions and adjourned the matter for further hearings.
