The Telangana High Court held that the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) Commissioner A.V. Ranganath, who is an IPS officer, committed wilful and deliberate disobedience of the court's earlier orders by entering private land despite an undertaking that HYDRAA officials would not interfere with the property. Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti observed that no authority, irrespective of its position, is above the rule of law and requested the State Government to relieve the officer from the post of Commissioner, HYDRAA.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings arose from a long-running dispute concerning nearly 40 acres of land in Survey Nos. 1 and 2 of Lothukunta Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. M/s. Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had earlier succeeded before the High Court, and subsequent proceedings initiated by the State challenging the company's title were also rejected. The court noted that those decisions had attained finality and that the company's title continued to stand recognised.
The judgment records that earlier contempt proceedings were closed after government authorities assured the court that its directions would be obeyed. In June 2026, during a second round of contempt proceedings, HYDRAA itself gave an undertaking through its counsel that its officers would not enter the petitioner's property or interfere with its possession. The court recorded that assurance and disposed of the matter.
Fresh Allegations Led to Third Contempt Case
According to the petitioner, despite the undertaking, HYDRAA officials, accompanied by police personnel, machinery and earthmovers, entered the property on 17 and 18 July 2026. Temporary structures were allegedly demolished and fencing activity was undertaken without issuing any notice.
During the hearing, the court examined the explanations offered by HYDRAA. It found that no material had been produced to show any valid request from the revenue authorities requiring such action, nor was any notice served on the petitioner before entering the land.
Court's Observations
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti remarked that the controversy was not merely about land but about obedience to judicial orders. The court held that when government law officers assure a court that an order will be followed, every department of the State is expected to honour that commitment.
Rejecting the explanation offered by the Commissioner, the court observed:
"Rule of Law has to prevail NOT Rule of Men."
The court further held that HYDRAA could not assume that it was free to disregard binding judicial directions merely because it was not a party to earlier proceedings. It observed that authorities functioning under the State must act in coordination and within the limits of law.
On the issue of the apology later filed by the Commissioner, the court found that it was tendered only after the court expressed dissatisfaction with the earlier affidavit. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, Justice Jukanti held that such an apology lacked genuine remorse and therefore could not be accepted.
"The acts of the respondent/contemnor constitute 'willful, deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given'," the bench observed.
Court's Decision
After examining the record, the High Court concluded that the Commissioner had violated the undertaking previously given before the court and had interfered with the administration of justice. While referring to Supreme Court rulings on contempt jurisdiction and proportional punishment, Justice Jukanti held that the interests of justice required administrative action against the officer.
The court requested the Chief Secretary of Telangana to find a suitable replacement and relieve A.V. Ranganath from the post of Commissioner, HYDRAA. The contempt cases were thereafter disposed of without any order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited v. A.V. Ranganath, IPS
Case Number: Contempt Case Nos. 3482 & 3483 of 2026
Judge: Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti
Decision Date: 27 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
