'Rule Of Men Is Death Knell To Democracy': Telangana High Court Asks State To Relieve HYDRAA Chief Over Demolition Despite Court Orders

The Telangana High Court asked the State government to relieve Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) Commissioner AV Ranganath from his post over HYDRAA carrying demolition in violation of court orders, observing that it was a classic case of Rule of Men trying to prevail over Rule of Law which would be a death knell to democracy. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 123]

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). 

Finding the Commissioner in contempt of court orders, Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti in his order said:

 "Rule of Law has to prevail. Not Rule of Men. Rule of Men prevails, it's a death knell for Democracy. This is a classic case of Rule of Men trying to prevail over Rule of Law. A fallacy which shall remain a dream in a True Democracy like ours"

The court passed the order in contempt pleas filed against HYDRAA Commissioner in connection with a case wherein land owner had claimed that HYDRAA entered his property and carried out demolition of structures in Lothkuntha village. 

The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition seeking repossession of land which was allowed on 08.03.2021. State filed an appeal which was disposed of with liberty to State to approach the Civil Court and file suit for possession on 02.07.2021. State approached civil court which rejected its suit 19.04.2022. Thereafter State moved an appeal before division bench of high court which dismissed its appeal on 07.10.2025; this order was not challenged and thus attained finality. 

Meanwhile contempt cases where filed claiming that orders of the high court were not being followed. In the first contempt case oral assurance was given that respondent would comply with the court's 08-03-2021 order based on which case was closed. Then a second contempt was filed where HYDRAA Commissioner was the respondent/ contemnor. There an undertaking was given to Court that officers and staff of HYDRAA would henceforth not enter into the petitioner's property; based on this court did not proceed further. 

However despite this police personnel entered the petitioner's property and a third contempt was filed wherein respondent/ contemnor who was present in court had submitted that "Cantonment Board requested" the respondent to protect the land parcel. However court noted that this was contrary to an earlier submission that proceedings were undertaken on the request of Revenue department.

Thereafter the Commissioner had filed an affidavit explaining the acts of omission and commission on July 23, denying the allegations stating that respondent had not interfered with possession. To this the court had expressed "displeasure and pointed out that the officer had not even tendered an apology". Thereafter another affidavit was filed by the Commissioner on July 25 tendering  apology and stated that he neither interfered nor is interfering in the land of the petitioner. 

The court referred to the material before it and the submissions as well as affidavits and observed that the  staff of the HYDRAA along with men, machinery and police personnel entered the subject property of petitioner, demolished existing temporary structures raised by the petitioner, on the premise that the
"subject land is Government land, needs to be fenced and protected". 

The court however noted that no document was placed on record to demonstrate that a request emanated from the office of concerned revenue department for the alleged fencing activity to be taken up at the behest of revenue department. There is nothing to suggest that notice is issued to the petitioner, no notice was issued to the petitioner by any of the authorities, it noted. The court thus held that the acts of the respondent amounts to wilful disobedience of court orders. 

"Having considered the totality of circumstances, the acts of respondent/ contemnor which constitute "willful' deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given", and the act of again venturing into the subject property of petitioner with men and machinery is unlawful. In the facts and circumstances of the case, being guided by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Mohan Rao's case (11 supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the said officer is to be relieved from the post of Commissioner of HYDRAA in the interest of justice, to uphold the Rule of Law and the Majesty of Courts. The Chief Secretary of the State Government is requested to find a suitable replacement of the officer, as early as possible and the respondent/contemnor be relieved. This Court is conscious of the observations made in this order, in fact, deeply conscious". 

At the outset the court referred to Greek Mythology wherein a serpentine water monster, by name, 'Hydra', symbol of resilience and regeneration, posed challenges that seem insurmountable to any, who tried to conquer it.

"This Hydra of Greek mythology' is traditionally depicted as a gargantuan serpent with numerous heads. The distinctive and daunting trait of remarkable regenerative ability made the Hydra (of Greek mythology) nearly invincible to those, who attempted to conquer it, but was ultimately slayed.  I hope HYDRAA i.e., Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (for short, 'the HYDRAA') is not under the same impression that it is invincible. If Courts were to permit HYDRAA to overpower/ overtake every formidable adversary i.e., citizens of State, by not adhering to Rule of Law, then it would sound a death knell to Rule of Law". 

The court said that it hopes that HYDRAA learns that acts in defiance to rule of law will not be upheld and will be dealt with sternly by courts just like Hercules did with the Hydra in Greek mythology. 

The contempt pleas were disposed of. 

Case title: M/s. Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited v/s AV Ranganath 

CC.Nos.3482 AND 3483 0F 2026 

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M Hareesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Advocate General representing Sri R Sameer Ahmed (Standing Counsel for HYDRAA)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 123