Telangana Objects To SC Panel Calling Kancha Gachibowli As Forest

The state government also raised objections to the title of the suo motu petition — “In RE: Kancha Gachibowli Forest vs. State of Telangana” — which was adopted by the apex court.

The state government submitted to the Supreme Court that the lands have been mischaracterised as forest, particularly the area spanning approximately 400 acres, where a judicially enforced status quo has been in place for over 17 years.

It also submitted that no official forest notification under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, or any other statutory provision has ever been issued for this land. The respondent asserted that the land in question does not meet the legal criteria for classification as “forest”, as per judicial and statutory definitions.

In a detailed reply to the Supreme Court, Chief Secretary K. Ramakrishna Rao submitted before the Supreme Court that strong exception was taken to the repeated references by the CEC to the area as “forest land”. He stated that over the past decade and a half, due to prolonged inactivity and absence of human interference, natural greenery had gradually flourished on the site, and it had been erroneously interpreted by certain groups as forest — leading to confusion and legal misrepresentation.

Apart from the reply affidavit, the state government’s counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also objected — during Wednesday’s hearing of the suo motu petition and another related petition — to the use of the term “forest” by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai. Following the objections, the Chief Justice referred to it instead as “trees”.

While adjourning the case for three weeks, the CJI observed that the “forest” on the disputed land must be protected. When the state counsel disagreed with the terminology and expressed readiness to argue that the land was government land, the CJI clarified that the trees must still be protected.

However, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai clearly told the government that the proposed development cannot come at the cost of the biodiversity of the entire university.

“I myself am an advocate for sustainable development, but that doesn't mean that overnight you should employ 30 bulldozers and clear all the jungle,” remarked Chief Justice Gavai, criticising the government’s earlier action of felling trees using heavy machinery.

The court adjourned the hearing to August 13, by which time all private parties must file their responses to the reply affidavit filed by the state government.