From Lake Revival To High Court Trouble: HYDRAA In Focus

For HYDRAA Commissioner A.V. Ranganath, November 11 turned out to be a day of two contrasting developments. On one side, Chief Minister Revanth Reddy inaugurated the restored Thammidikunta Lake in Madhapur, showcasing what the government described as a major achievement in Hyderabad’s lake-protection efforts. On the other, the Telangana High Court directed the state DGP to ensure Ranganath’s personal appearance in a contempt of court case concerning an alleged violation of judicial directions in Shamshabad.

The coincidence puts the spotlight on an increasingly important question surrounding HYDRAA: Can an agency tasked with protecting public assets and reclaiming encroached water bodies ensure that its own enforcement actions comply with the law?

A visible success at Thammidikunta

Thammidikunta Lake has become one of HYDRAA’s most prominent restoration projects. The water body, which had reportedly shrunk to around 14 acres, has now been expanded to approximately 30 acres following the removal of encroachments and accumulated waste.

According to HYDRAA Commissioner Ranganath, more than 30,000 truckloads of silt, construction debris and other waste were removed. The lake’s depth increased from 0.6 metres to 4.6 metres, while its water storage capacity reportedly increased eight times to 370 million litres. The project also includes a 1.6-km walking track, an open gym, a children’s play area and landscaped spaces. Three inlets and an outlet were reconstructed, while a pipeline was installed to divert sewage away from the lake.

The inauguration was particularly significant because this was the same lake whose alleged encroachments led to the demolition of portions of actor Akkineni Nagarjuna’s N Convention Centre in August 2024. Nagarjuna, who attended the inauguration alongside the Chief Minister, was also appreciated for voluntarily handing over two acres of land for the restoration project, with Revanth Reddy calling him a “real life hero”.

For the government, Thammidikunta offers a tangible example of what its lake-restoration programme can achieve.

But the legal questions remain

On the same day, the Telangana High Court took a different view of HYDRAA’s functioning in an unrelated case.

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy directed the DGP to ensure Ranganath’s personal appearance on November 17 in a contempt petition filed by Mohammed Tajamaluddin. The case concerns approximately nine acres of land in Shamshabad.

The dispute dates back to October 2024, when the High Court permitted the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities with documents seeking removal of his land from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The authorities were directed to examine the application and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

However, the petitioner subsequently alleged that HYDRAA demolished an existing structure, removed fencing and took possession of the property without issuing notice, despite the earlier court directions.

The court had directed Ranganath and the Shamshabad Tahsildar to appear on November 11. Both officials sought exemption from personal appearance, but their applications were rejected. The court subsequently directed the DGP and Cyberabad Police to ensure their appearance at the next hearing. Importantly, the court has not yet delivered a final finding of contempt against Ranganath. The allegations are still to be examined.

The larger question of accountability

These two developments highlight the distinction between an agency’s objectives and the methods it employs to achieve them.

There is little disagreement about the need to protect Hyderabad’s rapidly disappearing lakes. Encroachments, illegal construction, sewage discharge and indiscriminate dumping have contributed to the deterioration of the city’s water bodies. HYDRAA’s restoration work at Thammidikunta demonstrates the potential public benefits of reclaiming and reviving these spaces.

However, the protection of public assets cannot come at the cost of due process. Questions surrounding ownership, notices, demolition procedures and compliance with judicial orders cannot be brushed aside simply because the broader objective is environmental protection.

This distinction becomes even more important as the government prepares to expand its ambitions to projects such as the Musi River rejuvenation.

Thammidikunta may demonstrate what HYDRAA can accomplish when it reclaims and restores a water body. The Shamshabad proceedings, meanwhile, raise questions about the legal boundaries within which such enforcement must operate. Ultimately, HYDRAA’s credibility will depend not just on how many acres it reclaims or how many lakes it restores, but also on whether it can demonstrate that its actions consistently stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Tags HYDRAA