HC Initiates Contempt Action Against HYDRAA Chief Over Malkajgiri Demolition

On Wednesday, the Telangana High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath and issued him a notice over the demolition of a compound wall in Malkajgiri, questioning whether the agency was running a parallel government. Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar issued the reprimand while hearing a petition by landowners challenging the action on their property.

The petitioners had approached the High Court after authorities demolished their compound wall on July 18, 2026. Following the demolition, officials erected fencing and signboards on their property situated in Survey No. 194/1 of Malkajgiri. The landowners contended that the enforcement action was executed without prior notice and in direct violation of subsisting High Court orders restraining officials from interfering with their possession.

At a previous hearing, the court had directed key local administrators—including the District Collector of Medchal-Malkajgiri, the Mandal Revenue Officer of Malkajgiri, and the Tahsildar/MRO of Tirumalgiri—to appear before the court with relevant records. The officials were required to explain how the demolition and fencing were carried out despite existing judicial orders protecting the land.

Appearing in court on Wednesday, the Medchal-Malkajgiri District Collector and the concerned revenue officials stated that they had not granted any permission or authorization to HYDRAA to demolish the compound wall at the site.

Upon recording the statements of the revenue officials, Justice Shravan Kumar questioned why HYDRAA was running a parallel government and expressed serious concern over the functioning of the agency. The judge remarked that it seemed to have become a routine pattern for authorities to carry out demolitions first and later appear before the court to apologize.

The High Court also noted that multiple writ petitions concerning the same parcel of land were already pending, with earlier orders protecting the landowners' possession remaining in effect. The court recorded that revenue authorities were fully aware of these protective orders and ought to have brought them to HYDRAA's attention before permitting any action on the ground. Finding the circumstances serious, Justice Shravan Kumar proceeded to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the HYDRAA Commissioner.