Telangana HC Warns HYDRAA Chief Over Contempt In Suraram Land Dispute

On June 10, 2026, the Telangana High Court cautioned HYDRAA Commissioner AV Ranganath over his failure to appear in a contempt case linked to a land dispute in Suraram, Hyderabad. Justice NV Shravan Kumar warned the commissioner that continued disregard of judicial directions and a hurried approach to official functioning could adversely impact his professional career.

The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction over the commissioner's failure to appear before it despite earlier directions. Justice NV Shravan Kumar remarked that personal appearance was not the only option, noting that the commissioner could have at least joined the court proceedings through a video conference.

The case stems from a contempt petition filed by a landowner in Suraram. The petitioner alleged that HYDRAA officials had erected fencing and installed an official board on the disputed land without issuing any prior notice, despite the land dispute still pending adjudication before the court.

In an earlier hearing on the writ petition, the High Court had expressed displeasure at the actions of the HYDRAA authorities and ordered them to remove the fencing and the board within 48 hours. The petitioner filed the contempt case after the authorities allegedly failed to comply within that stipulated timeframe, leaving the board in place for nearly 20 days.

During the June 10 hearing, the court demanded an affidavit explaining the delay and the commissioner's absence. Later in the day, counsel representing HYDRAA filed an affidavit confirming that the court's directions had finally been complied with.

While the High Court accepted the affidavit and exempted the commissioner from personal appearance in future hearings, Justice NV Shravan Kumar observed that the document appeared to have been prepared in a casual manner. The Bench stated that a more comprehensive explanation was still required to justify the delay in implementing the court's orders.

Senior counsel Vidyasagar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that even if compliance was eventually achieved, the authorities had failed to act within the 48-hour window. Before adjourning the matter, the court observed that public authorities must act with greater responsibility and warned of serious consequences if judicial orders are ignored.