Telangana High Court Grants Interim Relief to HYDRAA Chief in Lothu Kunta Land Dispute

The Telangana High Court has granted interim relief to Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection Agency (HYDRAA) Commissioner A V Ranganath in connection with a land dispute at Lothu Kunta in Rangareddy district. The court suspended the operation of a single judge's order and advised the official to stay away from the disputed site until the matter is resolved.

A division bench headed by Justice Sam Koshi issued the order while hearing a contempt appeal concerning the manner in which HYDRAA officials allegedly handled land situated in Survey Nos. 1 and 2.

The bench observed that when the identification, boundaries, and ownership of land remain disputed, authorities must exercise restraint and avoid hurried enforcement. Remarking on the situation, the bench told Ranganath that it would be better to stay away from the disputed land if he wished to continue in service, while clarifying that the court was not currently deciding the underlying title or survey-number dispute.

The court noted that the dispute over Survey Nos. 1 and 2 was already sub judice and that any conclusive finding on land identification could prejudice other pending legal proceedings. The bench suggested that a joint survey and proper demarcation by revenue authorities should take place prior to any further action on the ground.

Counsel representing HYDRAA submitted that Ranganath had acted in accordance with official requisitions, government records, and geo-coordinates indicating that government land identified as GLR 243 was involved. Counsel argued that the matter involved at most a factual error and did not amount to wilful disobedience, which is required to establish contempt of court.

The commissioner's counsel also challenged the single judge's reference to 62 contempt cases against the official, stating that none had resulted in a finding of guilt and that those matters had not been formally put to Ranganath for an explanation.

Furthermore, counsel contested the single judge's direction regarding Ranganath's removal from office, arguing under Supreme Court precedent that a contempt court cannot create or impose punishments beyond those recognised under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The division bench noted that an official's conduct and the nature of the punishment imposed are separate issues requiring independent consideration. The bench highlighted the need to balance the protection of the petitioner's property rights with safeguarding public land if it is ultimately established to belong to the government. The case has been posted for further hearing on November 3.