HC questions HYDRAA over compliance

Hyderabad: Telangana high court on Monday asked the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) whether it complied with the court's earlier orders to remove a fence around a 1,600 sq yard land at Gandipet on the outskirts of the city.Making strong observations on HYDRAA's claims that it was protecting govt land, the court said constitutional courts were there to protect govt land and agencies like HYDRAA could not act beyond the courts.
"The prima facie view taken by courts against you is that you are acting like that," the high court said. Justice NV Shravan Kumar, while hearing petitions seeking directions to remove fences allegedly laid by HYDRAA on the petitioners' land, asked the agency what procedure it followed for identifying land and laying fences around them and how many land parcels it had fenced in the past. The judge also asked the agency to explain its authority to resort to such actions. In response, HYDRAA's counsel told the court that the agency, while initiating action on encroachments on govt land parcels based on complaints lodged on multiple forums, also took preventative measures to stop vulnerable govt land parcels from being encroached. The counsel also submitted that the agency only fenced a septic tank and an abutting govt land and that it did not fence land belonging to the petitioners.The petitioners alleged that the fence laid by the agency around the open land and the septic tank blocked their way to their land located in the centre of the fenced area. The judge directed the agency to remove the fence from the private property.When HYDRAA counsel sought time to file counters, the judge said over 400 matters related to HYDRAA were before the court and asked him to explain in how many matters counters were filed and why no HYDRAA officers assisted when matters were taken up for hearing.The judge also pointed to the agency's non-compliance with court orders issued on Feb 10 directing it to remove the fence within 48 hours of receipt of the order. The judge directed HYDRAA counsel to ensure the agency complied with the court orders and adjourned the matters for further hearing.The petitioners alleged that the fence laid by the agency around the open land and the septic tank blocked their way to their land located in the centre of the fenced area