The Telangana High Court has once again taken a firm stance in the ongoing Bathukammakunta land dispute, questioning why demolition activity was carried out even after its clear status quo order. During the latest hearing, the bench also criticised HYDRAA Commissioner Ranganath, expressing displeasure over the manner in which the court’s directives were handled.
Table of Contents
Munsif News 24×7 brings this detailed explainer on the High Court’s strong remarks and the developments shaping the case.
Bench Slams Actions Taken After Its Order
A division bench of Justice Mouswami Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a contempt petition filed by A. Sudhakar Reddy. The petition accused HYDRAA Commissioner Ranganath of violating the court’s instructions directing status quo on the disputed Bathukammakunta land.
Key concerns raised by the High Court included:
- Why the demolition took place even after the court’s order
- Why the Commissioner failed to appear in person on the earlier date
- Why steps were not taken to ensure compliance with the court’s directions
The court emphasised that any breach of its authority would attract serious consequences, adding that its powers must not be underestimated.
Also Read: Waqf Property Registration Deadline Extended as Kiren Rijiju Grants Additional Time to Mutawallis
Court Displeased Over Absence; Warns of Consequences
The bench earlier directed Ranganath to appear on November 27, but he sought exemption citing urgent official work in Bachupalli.
Special Public Prosecutor Swaroop Urilla supported the explanation, prompting a stern comment from the bench:
“Congratulations to Ranganath for his kindness to the Court.”
The court warned that if its authority is ignored, incumbent action would follow, and the Commissioner would be made to remain in the court hall throughout the day.
The judges reminded that forgetting the powers of the court could lead to severe consequences.
Commissioner Appears; Bench Again Asks: Why the Demolition?
Responding to the court’s direction, HYDRAA Commissioner Ranganath appeared in person at the next hearing.
The bench revisited the core question:
“Why was it demolished even after the order?”
Ranganath informed the court that only waste removal was carried out. However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction and questioned the rationale behind proceeding with any activity when a status quo order was in force.
The matter has now been posted for further hearing on May 18.
What Happens Next?
- Ranganath has been clearly instructed to appear when required, failing which a non-bailable warrant may be issued.
- The High Court will continue examining whether the Bathukammakunta demolition violated its directives.
- The outcome of this case may influence the handling of similar land disputes and administrative decisions in the state.
The Telangana High Court’s stern questioning — “Why was it demolished even after the order?” — continues to dominate the case, placing significant pressure on HYDRAA Commissioner Ranganath. With the court reaffirming its powers and demanding strict compliance, the Bathukammakunta dispute remains a closely watched legal battle.
Munsif News 24×7 will keep tracking all developments surrounding the High Court’s stance and the actions taken by the Commissioner.
