KANCHA GACHIBOWLI: SC WARNS TELANGANA TO RESTORE 100 ACRES OR FACE ACTION:

In the case concerning large-scale tree felling in Telangana’s Kancha Gachibowli area, the Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized that restoring the status quo and protecting wildlife are its foremost priorities. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih directed the State Wildlife Warden to take immediate steps to safeguard wildlife affected by deforestation on the 100-acre site.

The matter was posted for further hearing on May 15 after Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Telangana, submitted that the latest report by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was voluminous and the state needed time to file a response. Granting four weeks, the Court ordered that no further trees be felled in the meantime and warned of sending state officials to “temporary prison” if restoration efforts were resisted.

Dr. Singhvi informed the bench that all development activities had been halted and claimed that any lapses were unintentional. When questioned about permissions under the WALTA Act, he admitted that about 1,300 trees were felled based on “self-certification.” Justice Gavai, referring to the Court’s landmark 1996 judgment defining “forest,” expressed disbelief at such self-exemptions and warned that such actions may violate Supreme Court orders.

Amicus Curiae K. Parameswar alleged that the state mortgaged the land to a private party for ₹10,000 crores shortly before the trees were cleared. He pointed out that the Chief Secretary’s affidavit omits this crucial detail, raising concerns that private parties may assert claims over the land.

The Court made it clear that its concerns lie in halting further deforestation, restoring forest cover, and protecting wildlife. It urged the state to present a restoration plan and warned of severe consequences if it failed to do so. Justice Gavai also noted that bulldozers were deployed during a holiday period, questioning the urgency behind the move.

Intervenor’s counsel, Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, presented images showing wild animals affected by the clearing, some chased by stray dogs. Justice Gavai expressed concern, urging immediate measures to shelter and protect the displaced wildlife.

The Court emphasized that environmental protection would take precedence over any statutory interpretation conflicting with its 1996 judgment. Invoking Article 142, Justice Gavai declared, “We will go out of the way, if needed, to protect the environment.”