Telangana High Court Suspends Contempt Order Against HYDRAA Chief A.V. Ranganath
The Telangana High Court’s Division Bench has suspended the operation of a Single Judge’s order directing the state government to remove Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) Commissioner A.V. Ranganath from his post. The development gives Ranganath temporary relief from the earlier contempt proceedings.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, was hearing an appeal filed by Ranganath challenging the Single Judge’s direction. The matter has been posted for further hearing on November 3.
The original proceedings arose from a dispute involving approximately 40 acres of land at Lothkunta in Secunderabad. Shanta Sriram Constructions had approached the High Court alleging that HYDRAA officials interfered with its property despite earlier court directions and an undertaking given by the agency.
According to the proceedings, HYDRAA officials entered the disputed property on July 17–18 and demolished temporary structures while undertaking what was described as fencing or demarcation activity. The company alleged that this action violated previous judicial directions restraining interference with its possession.
The Single Judge subsequently took a strong view of the alleged violations and directed the Telangana Chief Secretary to remove Ranganath as HYDRAA Commissioner and appoint another officer in his place. The order followed observations concerning repeated alleged disobedience of court directions by HYDRAA authorities.
The dispute has become one of several legal confrontations involving HYDRAA and its demolition and land-protection operations. In another case, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings after HYDRAA demolished a compound wall in Malkajgiri despite earlier orders protecting the landowners’ possession.
That proceeding prompted the court to question whether HYDRAA was effectively operating as a “parallel government”, after revenue officials told the court that they had not authorised the demolition. The court expressed concern over authorities allegedly acting first and subsequently approaching the judiciary to explain their actions.
The latest Division Bench order does not finally decide whether the allegations against Ranganath were justified. Instead, it puts the Single Judge’s removal direction on hold while the appeal is considered further. The bench has also directed Ranganath and HYDRAA officials not to enter or interfere with the disputed property until further orders.
The Telangana government has previously defended Ranganath and indicated that it would legally challenge the removal order. Ranganath himself has maintained that HYDRAA respects the courts but has argued that some land petitioners have attempted to mislead the judiciary over disputed properties.
The immediate effect of the Division Bench’s intervention is therefore significant: Ranganath remains HYDRAA Commissioner for now, while the controversy over the agency’s alleged violations of court orders and its authority to act against disputed properties remains before the High Court.
