Telangana High Court Holds HYDRAA Commissioner Guilty Of Contempt For Putting Permanent Structures On Disputed Land Despite Court Order

The Telangana High Court has held the Commissioner of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) guilty of contempt in regard to an earlier order wherein the body was permitted to undertake pre-monsoon work without affecting a party's interest over a disputed land area. 

The court found that the body had created structures on the land in question including redevelopment of a lake, and directed it to remove all signages, structures and markers indicating HYDRAA's ownership or control over the land.

A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:

“The undisputed facts as stated above, show that the respondent flouted the order dated 12.06.2025 including the submission made on its behalf that the respondent would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner's interest in respect of the subject land. The contention now raised on behalf of the respondent that prejudice can only be caused by alienation or transfer of the subject land to third parties is not acceptable. Changing the land from June - December, 2025, almost beyond recognition, amounts to prejudicially affecting the interest of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the respondent knowingly continued to disobey the order passed by this Court on 12.06.2025".

The court further noted that between June, 2025 to December, 2025, the "nature and character" of the land had changed from a semi-drained and muddy terrain into a curated, enclosed recreational space designed for visitors offering entertainment facilities for relaxation.

Perusing the photographs the court noted that a significant and noticeable alteration was the construction of a vertical garden bearing the name 'Bathukamma Kunta'. It said that the white board indicated that visitors' entry into the enclosed space is restricted in accordance with the timings stated thereon. 

"The facts narrated above, as corroborated by the photographs on record, establish that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the directions passed by the Court on 12.06.2025, whereby the Court directed the respondent to continue the order dated 28.05.2025, i.e., permitting HYDRAA to undertake necessary pre-monsoon works which were required for preventing flooding of the neighbouring colonies subject to the condition that HYDRAA shall not encroach upon the interest of the appellant in the land forming the subject matter of the pending CMA...the argument that HYDRAA has not transferred or alienated the subject land to third parties is not a defence to the respondent (Commissioner of HYDRAA) causing permanent structures to be constructed on the subject land and changing the appearance of the subject land beyond recognition. We thus hold the respondent (Commissioner of HYDRAA) to be guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the order dated 12.06.2025.”

The Court held that the conduct of the respondent satisfied both the definition of “civil contempt” and interference with the administration of justice, since the respondent continued to alter the subject land even while the appeal concerning rights over that land remained pending before the Court.

Background

The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of land in Hyderabad. HYDRAA, represented by its Commissioner, had been arrayed as defendant No.6 in the suit. After dismissal of the petitioner's injunction application by the trial court, the petitioner approached the High Court in appeal.

In the appeal, a coordinate Bench had on 07.05.2025 directed HYDRAA to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property. That order was modified on 28.05.2025, permitting HYDRAA to undertake “necessary pre-monsoon works” required to prevent inundation and flooding of neighbouring colonies.

On 12.06.2025, the Bench continued the order dated 28.05.2025, after recording HYDRAA's submission that the ongoing work would not affect the appellant's interest or the subject matter of the appeal. The Court accepted that submission “as an undertaking” and continued the permission subject to HYDRAA not encroaching on the appellant's interest in the land.

The petitioner filed a contempt case on 04.08.2025, alleging that HYDRAA had, despite the order dated 12.06.2025, substantially altered the nature and identity of the land. 

Findings

The petitioner placed on record photographs, spanning 13.06.2025 to 02.08.2025, showing activities such as construction of culverts and inlet structures, placement of pipes, and other works on the subject land. The second set of photos, from 28.08.2025 to 16.09.2025, showed more substantial changes, including drilling of borewells, construction of a children's play area, erection of other structures and a vertical garden bearing the inscription “Bathukamma Kunta”.

A newspaper report dated 17.09.2025 placed before the Court also referred to the opening of the “Renovated B'Kunta lake” and recorded that HYDRAA had installed gazebos, children's play equipment, an open-air gym and a walking track.

The third set of photographs, taken between 24.09.2025 and 04.12.2025, showed further transformation of the land, including an elevated entrance gate emblazoned with “Bathukamma Kunta”, a plaque stating that the site had been “Developed by HYDRAA,” and a white board displaying “visiting timings” from 5:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. The Court also noted that one of the photographs showed the gate locked, with the petitioner's watch-and-ward personnel standing outside, indicating that access had been restricted.

It found that while the initial changes could perhaps be linked to flood-prevention works, what followed from September 2025 onward went far beyond the limited leave granted by the Court.

The Court found particularly significant that the respondent had formally projected the land as “Bathukamma Kunta”, installed an entrance gate and plaque, announced inauguration plans, and treated the land as part of a State-organised public event, even though the appeal on rights over the land was still pending.

It observed that the respondent had assumed that the appeal would fail and had proceeded as though it was at liberty to make permanent changes to the land notwithstanding pendency of the appeal

Rejecting the State's defence that no prejudice had been caused because the land had not been alienated or transferred to third parties, the Court held that such a submission was unacceptable. It said that changing the land “almost beyond recognition” itself amounted to prejudicially affecting the petitioner's interest.

"The conduct of the respondent in effecting substantial changes to the subject land, despite the pendency of the CMA whereby the petitioner's claim to the subject land has been questioned, reeks of wilful disobedience. The respondent was aware of the pendency of the CMA at all relevant points of time, having actively participated in the hearings. The respondent had contested the I.As. filed by the petitioner and was represented at the time of passing of the orders dated 07.05.2025 and 28.05.2025, culminating in the order dated 12.06.2025. The Court permitted the respondent to carry on with its anti-flooding work provided that the said work did not encroach upon the petitioner's interest in the subject land on the respondent's undertaking that the petitioner's/appellant's interest would not be adversely affected. The respondent is also guilty of obstructing the administration of justice since the Court is yet to decide the CMA i.e., whether the petitioner can claim any interest in the subject land".

It said that the respondent had personally appeared before the Court on 05.12.2025, and yet the constructions and alterations had continued or remained intact thereafter. The Court held that there was “not an iota of doubt” that the respondent was fully aware of the order dated 12.06.2025 and the contempt proceedings arising from it.

On the question of relief, however, the Court declined to impose the statutory punishment of simple imprisonment or fine at this stage. It held that imprisonment would be too harsh while fine would be too little, and neither would serve the purpose of restoring the petitioner's rights. 

At the same time, the Court stopped short of directing the land to be physically dug up or restored to the exact muddy, disturbed condition in which it stood in June 2025. Observing that such a direction would be “mindless” and may create more logistical difficulties, the Court instead directed HYDRAA to remove all markers and indications of ownership or association with HYDRAA, including boards, signages, gates, walls, boundaries and descriptions suggesting that the land belonged to or had been developed by HYDRAA or that it was a public recreational space under HYDRAA's control.

The matter has been directed to be listed on 27.04.2026 “For Compliance.”

Case Title: A. Sudhakar Reddy v. V. Ranganath

Case No.: Contempt Case No.2060 of 2025

Appearance: Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel representing M/s Bharadwaj Associates, for the petitioner; Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader, for the respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order