Kancha Gachibowli Is Not Forest Land, Says Telangana Govt

Hyderabad: The state government has informed the Supreme Court that the land at Kancha Gachibowli is “not forest land” and that its development “does not violate any law” and the government was committed “towards ecological protection and lake conservation during the subject land's development.”

In its affidavit submitted to the apex court ahead of Thursday’s hearing on the matter, the government said that its affidavit was in continuation to the compliance affidavit that it had submitted on April 13, and as per the court’s directives, all “further process was halted on the subject land.”

The government said that “the issue in the present proceedings concerns the legality and validity of the decision taken by the state government and TGIIC to develop the subject land keeping in mind the long-term developmental objectives of the state.”

It said the government’s “policy decision to develop the subject land was undertaken duly taking into consideration the necessity to maintain the ecological balance of the subject land and its vicinity. The proposed development forms part of a broader vision to promote planned urban infrastructure, attract investment, generate employment and contribute to the overall economic growth of the region.”

The affidavit also said that the land, “being strategically located in a prominent urban corridor, is vital to the state's efforts to establish Hyderabad as a hub for high-value industrial, technological, and service sectors. The actions of the government and TGIIC are in furtherance of public interest and fall well within their domain of policy-making and land management.”

The government, which submitted documentary evidence as part of the affidavit to show its ownership of the land, said that the land in question belonged to the state government and that it was alienated to TGIIC following due procedures.

The affidavit explained that the land was involved in a lengthy litigation with relation to it being given to IMB Bharata for developing sports infrastructure, and the subsequent legal proceedings. “For a considerable period during the pendency of various proceedings, the land remained completely idle and unattended. No development, maintenance, or land-use activity could be undertaken by the government or its agencies due to the operative legal restraint,” it said.

The government explained that in this background, “over time, natural vegetation including shrubs, grasses, and scattered trees began to appear on parts of the land. This growth was a direct result of prolonged non-utilisation and absence of human activity, and not due to any classification or treatment of the land as forest.”

It said the central premise of the petition’s challenge rested on a “misconceived and factually incorrect assertion that the land constitutes forest land. It is on this erroneous foundation that the petitioners contend the action of the State to be illegal and in breach of environmental and statutory obligations. This contention is wholly untenable in law and contrary to the official records.”

The affidavit explained that at no point in time, “either in the past or during the prolonged period when the subject land lay unutilised,” did any of the petitioners, or any stakeholder including the University of Hyderabad, “raise any objection or submit a representation claiming that the subject land, or any part of Survey No 25, constitutes forest land. The present stand taken by the Petitioners is belated and untenable.”

Infograph

Government says Kancha Gachibowli land is a 'deemed forest', not only factually incorrect but also entirely self-contradictory.

If this land is to be treated as forest land, the claim will equally apply to the entire 2,374.02 acres forming part of the same Survey No. 25.

This means, long-standing occupation, construction activities by the University of Hyderabad, including establishment of its campus, buildings, four helipads and other infrastructure will fall foul of forest and environmental laws.

Radications in petitions/interim applications demonstrate lack of merit in argument and highlight the fact that the claim of forest character was being raised as an afterthought to obstruct the lawful development of the land by the government.

Steps taken for ecological and wildlife protection in the land parcel as per court directives. These include setting up water troughs for wildlife, camera traps and CCTV cameras to monitor the area, and for tracking wildlife, and patrolling of the land.