HYDRAA - Balancing Development And Justice In Telangana

Also read: FTL, Buffer Zone and G.O. 111 Area demolitions by HYDRAA – Legal Perspective which covers the legal ramifications of demolitions by HYDRAA and background of applicable legislations, HC and NGT rulings.

HYDRAA's responsibilities under its Asset Protection wing involves prevention and removal of encroachments on public assets, i.e. belonging to local bodies and the Government; including parks, layout open spaces, playgrounds, lakes, nalas, land parcels, roads, carriageways, footpaths, etc. It can perform inspection of private premises and removal of dilapidated structures upon requests from urban local and development bodies^[3], GHMC, HMDA, Irrigation and Revenue Departments, with assistance from the police. It can also take penal actions on advertisement violations in the premises of local bodies, shared on a real time database. To provide legal backing to HYDRAA, an ordinance to amend GHMC Act, 1955 was passed on October 03, 2024^[4] inserting S. 374 B, wherein the Government can engage any officer/agency/authority for protection of public assets, notified vide G. O. Ms. No. 191.

Scope and Powers of HYDRAA are governed under various laws and regulations, namely:

• GHMC Act, 1955^[5] - S. 373 provides powers over public streets to vest in a corporation and under the control of the Commissioner as per S. 374. Also, S. 405 allows Municipal Corporation^[6] to remove illegal encroachments without any notice on the road, road margins, pavements, and footpaths. In the landmark case of 3 Aces, Hyderabad v. M.C.H, 1994^[7], the High Court issued guidelines restricting demolition of specific structures (covering deemed permissions when a delay in response is beyond 30 days under S. 437^[8]), in matters of public interest, public nuisance, public safety and not when its minor or trivial, not on Government holidays, not after sunset and before sunrise, and to issue notice under relevant statutes fixing date and giving reasonable time.
• Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357^[9] Fasli^[10]- S. 7 gives powers to the Irrigation Officer to enter and remove any obstruction, close any channel and do any work as necessary, subject to S 11, i.e. provide a reasonable notice to the occupants in dwelling houses which are 'not' adjacent to a flood embankment maintained by the Government for any irrigation related work.
• WALTA, 2002^[11]- establishes the Telangana Water Land Trees Authority (“Authority”), which can delegate its powers under S. 7 to a district/division/mandal level, Government, or local authority. S. 25 allows to designate an officer to oversee the protection of water bodies under urban and rural areas. Further, under S. 23, the Authority can notify water bodies as heritage and conservation areas, demarcate boundaries as per the memoirs of water course and regulate encroachments by issuing directions and guidelines.
• Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905^[12]- Notably, S. 6 empowers the Collector/Tahsildar/ Deputy-Tahsildar to evict any person unauthorizedly occupying a land and he is liable to pay an assessment amount determined under S. 3 whilst forfeiting any crop/products raised on it, though only after issuing a written notice to the occupier and allowing a show cause opportunity.
• HMDA Act, 2008^[13]- S. 51 further permits the Commissioner to demarcate alignments based on the statutory plan, authorise any person(s) to make enquiry/inspect/ measure/survey or take levels of building/land, set out boundaries, ascertain land affected in statutory development/ land-pooling scheme etc., and determine compliance/contravention, done only between 6 AM to 6 PM with due regard to social, religious usages and allowing women to withdraw from the premises. S. 52 is significant regarding HYDRAA, as the metropolitan development authority can direct its powers by resolution, to be exercisable by any metropolitan development authority, local body, or officer. Correspondingly, the Government can also delegate its powers by notification.
• G.O. Ms. No. 168 of 2012, read with notified Building rules, 2012 already prescribes development guidelines near water bodies. Stipulated by the MAUD and amended vide G.O. Ms. No. 7, Rule 3 states that no building/development activity is permissible in recreational/green buffer zone of waterbodies and no activity to be carried out within 100 m from and 50 m within the boundary of river outside Municipal Corporation/ Municipality/Nagar Panchayat limits. Moreover, no activity up to 30 m from FTL boundary of lakes/tanks/kuntas of area 10 hectares and above (while buffer zone may be utilized for road of minimum 12 m width and 12 feet walking cycling track) and 9 m from FTL boundaries in area less than 10 hectares/shikam lands. In case of canal, vagu, nala, storm water drains, limit is 9 m from boundary width more than 10 m and 2 m of boundary width up to 10 m. Specific No Objection Certificates (NOC), i.e. Irrigation department certificate, Revenue department certificate and Environmental clearance are also required, permitting HYDRAA to take actions in case of above violations.

Legal Implications – However, HYDRAA demolished structures without sufficient notice and time for reposition, which led to filing of writ petitions^[14] before the High Court, questioning the due procedures and pleading the notices served under S 23 of WALTA (recently notified lakes, waterbodies, etc,) as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, thereby demanding issue of writ of mandamus to set aside notices and not demolish buildings. High Court vide a Common order directed HYDRAA to follow due process, provide two weeks' time to respond and opportunity of being heard.

In N Convention v. State of Telangana and 6 Others,^[15] a speaking order was served at 9:04 am granting fifteen days' time to remove illegal construction however the demolition happened at 7:38 am. The earlier status quo orders under Rule 18 of the Telangana (Regularization of unauthorised Constructed Buildings and Buildings Constructed in Deviation of Sanctioned Plan) Rules, 2015 were directed to be maintained by all parties by the High Court. Again, in Pradeep Reddy v. State of Telangana and 6 Others,^[16] authorities came to demolish the farmhouse constructed in FTL of Osmansagar Lake without notice and petitioner claimed to have all permissions. The High Court observed that the permissions were obtained from the Sarpanch instead of the Panchayath Secretary, however, it directed HYDRAA to consider FTL/Buffer Zones notifications, permissions taken, prima facie title of encroachers and persons doing unauthorised construction and to follow due procedure under G.O. 99, directing HYDRAA to not discriminate against landowners owning smaller extents of land parcels.

Seeking clarity on due process to be followed by HYDRAA, in K. A. Paul v. State of Telangana and HYDRAA,^[17] a writ of mandamus was filed to restrain HYDRAA from demolishing buildings without conducting a proper survey identifying encroached properties, demanding issuance of notices, providing reasonable time of one month to vacate the premises and giving an opportunity to appeal to the dwellers. Further, it sought to direct HYDRAA to formulate a comprehensive and fair re-settlement- rehabilitation plan, impartial investigations, transparency in Musi River bifurcation projects, and all other projects. The petitioner placed reliance on the interim orders passed by the SC on September 09, 2024 in the Jamiat Ulama I Hind case^[18], stating that “till the next date of hearing there shall be no demolitions anywhere across the country without seeking leave of this Court and clarify that our order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law” and that the Government is duty bound to adhere to rule of law and to treat all citizens equally and fairly. The High Court has however not yet issued directions in this case.

In Manoj Tibrewal Akash v. Union of India,^[19] a Suo motu writ petition by SC regarding the demolition of an ancestral residential house and shop for expansion of notified highways under National Highway Act, 1956, under a road widening project. Authorities had given directions to remove encroachments through public announcements. Despite the interim court order and numerous applications/petitions, the demolition was performed causing the complainant to approach the National Human Rights Commission wherein it was found that the notice was not issued, and encroachment limit was less compared to the extent of demolition. The SC thus ordered compliance with principles of natural justice before proceeding, and if width of road is insufficient, the State is to acquire the land under law, directing damages and disciplinary action against the concerned officers.

In November 2024, the SC in case of demolition of structures^[20] of residential and commercial premises of various dwellers done illegally and without following the due procedure by state authorities because of criminal allegations against them, laid significant guidelines (applicable to authorised structures). The Apex court mandated the authorities to issue a fifteen day show cause notice, final order to contain reasons, and thereafter allow fifteen days to vacate premises, while the demolitions must also be video-graphed. It further directed to maintain a digital portal of notices/orders and that officials acting against judicial directions will be liable for damages and restoration at personal costs. Authorities and Government must follow these guidelines, as it has also been held in the case of Syed Waheed Hussain v. State of AP, Hyderabad^[21], that “The government cannot take law into its own hands and destroy the properties of citizens. The provisions of land encroachment clearly state that show cause notice must be given before dismantling illegal construction or evicting unauthorised persons.”

In addition to the above, on December 17, 2024^[22], the SC issued guidelines to obtain completion/occupation certificate, display of approved plan at construction site during construction, violations after completion also actionable and that contempt proceedings can be initiated if SC guidelines are violated. In respect of unauthorised structures (i.e. made without permissions/licenses, falling within the public spaces and protected zones, etc.), the SC referred to multiple past judgements, directing to follow rule of law for every construction without any leniency and observed that, “Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity of authorities in performing their obligations under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against illegal/unauthorised constructions.” Raising concerns over the effect on resources and long-term irreversible damage due to short sighted gains/approach of state governments, the SC directed that urban development be devised and regularisation schemes be brought only in exceptional/one-time cases in larger public interest and environmental considerations after a comprehensive survey. This shall now make any unauthorised/illegal construction (including residential) liable for demolition and cannot be regularised irrespective of delay, long occupancy, or investments.

On November 12, 2024, the High Court vide a Common order^[23] directed HYDRAA to issue notices to the encroachers and to the State for eviction and removal of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the FTL, River Bed Zone and Buffer Zone of Musi river in Hyderabad by following due process of law, to conduct a detailed socio-economic survey of persons affected by the rejuvenation of the river and to accommodate them suitably. The State was directed to issue notices to the occupants of patta or shikam-patta lands and to acquire them by paying appropriate compensation. The trial courts were directed to follow the guidelines issued by the division bench^[24] that before granting any stay or interim injunctions against the removal of illegal encroachments, to initiate suitable criminal action against encroachers and land grabbers around rivers, water bodies, ponds and lakes as per the applicable laws.

Recent Developments - HYDRAA conducted 262 demolitions in and around the FTL/Buffer Zones, Government lands, parks etc., across 23 locations in Hyderabad recovering a total of 111.72 acres of land till date. In September 2024, the Commissioner stated that HYDRAA would not demolish existing residences in FTL/Buffer Zones, however, upcoming new constructions will be razed if constructed without authorization. Now, in the light of recent SC guidelines, state authorities (including HYDRAA) cannot undertake regularisation of residential constructions on their own motion, but subject to the procedure laid down by the Apex court. With dedicated police stations for investigating complaints, HYDRAA is collaborating with National Remote Sensing Centre for monitoring water bodies for precise analysis and planning. The Commissioner on December 03, 2024, further announced to introduce a complaints session for public on every Monday from January 2025 to address the encroachment on ponds, lakes and nalas etc., at Buddha Bhavan in Hyderabad.

Before HYDRAA, for development of lands, owners/developers needed to comply with the rules laid down under G.O. Ms. No. 168 and Building Rules, 2012, and take various permissions from GHMC, HMDA, RERA and Irrigation Department to comply with the applicable laws. Also, for development around notified waterbodies, permission from Irrigation and Revenue Department was needed, which notified the FTL/Buffer Zone affected areas and provided NOCs. Now, the Government has mandated a separate NOC from HYDRAA additionally, for development around notified water bodies.

Rights of the bonafide purchasers and landowners - In the aftermath of HYDRAA's actions and SC guidelines, bonafide purchasers, residential house owners and landowners/developers must ensure relevant officials are held accountable for compensation and restoration in case of illegal demolitions. They have a right to receive timely notice, reasonable time to vacate, and damages or restoration from officials. If property for demolition is falling under public spaces, responsibility lies with the developers, authorities and officials who sanctioned the developments. Residential constructions, if unauthorised, are also liable for demolitions. The SC has issued demolition guidelines to municipal authorities in various previous cases^[25], stating in matters of S 636 (deemed unauthorised work/thing) of GHMC Act, reasonable notice (minimum seven days) is required, thereby allowing action against the erring officers.

Recommendations-

• Buyer beware – Buyers of properties must carry out due diligence before purchase. Buyers as well as owners of existing/ongoing residential constructions must verify revenue records and confirm all necessary permissions and restrictions on all developments.
• Landowners and developers must undertake legal due diligence in a comprehensive manner before purchasing and undertaking development in all lands and shall take responsibility for permissions granted by the authorities in suppression of material facts or fraud.
• A Unified Property Information System by Government is necessary to allow public, open access to detailed information from multiple departments (unlike Dharani / Bhumata portal which primarily focuses on agricultural land records), survey extent and owners, prohibitions/restrictions, Government claims etc., to enable streamlining of verification process, reduce illegal developments and promote greater transparency and accountability in land transactions.

HYDRAA has a crucial role to play in protecting the public assets in the Hyderabad region. As per the recent rulings, the state authorities will have to adhere to the rule of law in undertaking demolitions and follow the prescribed guidelines, rules and procedures, such as issuing prior notice, hearing grievances, recording reasons in order and giving enough time to vacate the premises. Complying with the principles of natural justice, adhering to law and following the due procedure of law would facilitate transparency, protect public interest and environment, while safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.

Authors: Mohan Kumar, Senior Partner, Deeksha Saggu, Associate & Swati Sharma, Associate At Kochhar & Co. Views are personal.

1. G.O. Ms. No. 99. ↑

2. TCUR comprises of GHMC, such areas of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Medchal- Malkajgiri and Sangareddy Districts up to the Outer Ring Road (ORR) ↑

3. Urban Local Bodies (ULB's), Urban Development Authority (UDA) and planning authorities ↑

4. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024 ↑

5. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 ↑

6. Jubilee Hills Labour Welfare Association, Hyderabad and Others V Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Others, 2003 (6) ALD 90. ↑

7. AIR 1995 Andhra Pradesh 17, (1994) ↑

8. S. 437 When building or work may be proceeded with (GHMC Act. 1955) ↑

9. The Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli ↑

10. Fasli is harvest based calendar used in Deccan Region (June to July), adding 590 gives Gregorian calendar ↑

11. Telangana Water, Land, and Trees Act, 2002. ↑

12. The Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905 ↑

13. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008. ↑

14. N Narasimha Raju and Another V State of Telangana and 4 Others WP No. 2394 of 2024.

    C Vinitha Reddy V State of Telangana and 4 Others WP No. 23297 of 2024.

    N Anirudh Reddy and Another V State of Telangana and 4 Others WP No. 23301 of 2024.

    Jonnalagadda Srikanth Babu V State of Telangana and 4 Others WP No. 23306 of 2024.

    M Muralidhar Rao V State of Telangana and 4 Others WP No. 23307 of 2024

    C Abhimanyu Reddy and Another V State of Telangana and 4 Others WP No. 23308 of 2024.

    Mohan Sagar V State of Telangana and 4 Others WP No. 23310 of 2024. ↑

15. WP No. 23421 of 2024. ↑

16. WP No. 23421 of 2024. ↑

17. WP (PIL) No. 41 of 2024. ↑

18. Jamat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others (WP (Civil) 295 of 2022) ↑

19. Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash V. Union of India – WP (Civil) No. 1294 of 2020 SC Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. ↑

20. Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, 2024 SCC Online SC 3291 ↑

21. 1996 4 ACD 361. ↑

22. Civil Appeal No.14604 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C)No. 36440 of 2014 ↑

23. Chintapalli Subrahmanyam and Another V State of Telangana and 3 Others WP No. 27110 of 2024. ↑

24. In Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad V. M/s. Philomena Education Foundation of India and the circular instructions in ROC No. 14/Registrar Judicial/ 2023 dated November 08, 2023 ↑

25. W.P.Nos.23611 of 2021 & 15787 of 2022

    Greater Mumbai and others v. Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Limited [(2019) 20 SC 781] ↑