Contempt Ruling and Land Disputes Put HYDRAA Commissioner Under Judicial Scrutiny
A High Court directive for the removal of Commissioner A.V. Ranganath follows allegations of unauthorized land seizures in Lothkunta. The dispute centers on forty acres of former rail-adjacent property claimed by a prominent developer despite previous judicial protections.
The Lothkunta Encroachment Conflict
Commissioner A.V. Ranganath now faces a directive for his removal from the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) following a series of contempt petitions. The legal friction stems from agency actions on a 40-acre land parcel located in Lothkunta village, Medchal Malkajgiri district. Although a private builder previously secured legal rights to this land after extensive litigation against the government, HYDRAA personnel moved to clear and fence the site following reports of hillock destruction from the Society to Save Rocks.
Conflicting Claims on Geography and Ownership
The core of the dispute rests on geographical discrepancies and land registry data. While the petitioner asserts ownership of survey numbers 1 and 2 in Lothkunta, Mr. Ranganath maintains that these survey numbers do not exist within that village. The Commissioner argues that the agency targeted government land approximately three kilometers away from the petitioner's property, citing the following evidence:
- Geo-coordinates reportedly aligning with General Land Register (GLR) 243, signifying Cantonment-allocated government property.
- A presence of three signboards identifying the area as A1 Defence land, according to the Society to Save Rocks.
- Claims by the Commissioner that a land acquisition order used by the petitioner in prior proceedings was a fabricated document.
Legal Ramifications and Agency Response
The High Court's intervention was triggered by HYDRAA's entry into the site, which allegedly violated an existing undertaking that the agency would not interfere with the property in question. While the agency could have utilized a division bench appeal to resolve the ownership ambiguity, the physical operation to clear the land led directly to the current contempt charges. Addressing the fallout, Mr. Ranganath stated that the operation was an attempt to enforce the rule of law and confirmed that the agency will pursue further legal recourse to address the High Court's directive.
Source: The Hindu — Cities
