In a significant development concerning mass deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli area of Telangana, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong message to the State government, prioritizing the restoration of 100 acres of cleared forest land and immediate wildlife protection. The apex court expressed concern over the ecological damage caused and issued a stark warning that if a plan for restoration is not submitted, responsible officers could face imprisonment.
A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih heard the matter and granted four weeks’ time to the State of Telangana to respond to the voluminous report submitted by the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC).
"Pursuant to our order, the CEC has inspected the spot and submitted report. Dr Singhvi, appearing on behalf of respondent-state, states that report is voluminous and State would take some time to respond. Four weeks’ time is granted to the state to file its reply," the Court noted.
Simultaneously, the bench ordered the Wildlife Warden of the state to take urgent steps to safeguard the wildlife affected due to the tree cutting and strictly prohibited any further felling of trees in the area.
"Not a single tree should be felled henceforth," the bench observed, adding that the State’s defiance of the Court’s earlier orders could land its officers in “temporary prison”.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State, stated that all development activities had been halted and described the previous tree felling as "bonafide and unintentional". He also claimed that permission was taken under the WALTA Act, with approximately 1300 trees self-certified as exempt.
This explanation did not sit well with the bench. Justice Gavai questioned whether such exemptions violated the 1996 Supreme Court judgment, which directed all states to consider the dictionary meaning of “forest” while identifying forest lands.
"Are they above the orders of the Supreme Court? We will not go by the interpretation of either the bureaucrats or the Ministers," Justice Gavai stressed.
Further, the Court inquired why bulldozers were brought in during a three-day holiday in March 2025 to undertake aggressive tree clearing. Justice Gavai called this a questionable urgency.
Amicus Curiae K. Parmeswar informed the bench that the Telangana government had mortgaged the subject land to a private entity for ₹10,000 crores, right before the bulldozers were deployed. He alleged that the State's affidavit was silent on this, raising CEC’s concern that the mortgage may allow private parties to claim rights over the land.
"If you want the Chief Secretary to be saved from severe action, you have to come out with a plan as to how you would restore those hundred acres... Otherwise, we don’t know how many of your officers will have to go in a temporary prison," Justice Gavai warned.
The Court firmly expressed that justifying tree felling is not an option and restoration is the only viable path forward.
Senior Advocate S Niranjan Reddy, representing an intervenor, presented photographic evidence of wild animals fleeing the area and being hunted by stray dogs. The visuals shocked the bench.
"We are surprised to see those videos where herbivorous animals are running to seek shelter, bitten by stray dogs," Justice Gavai remarked.
He directed that wildlife protection measures must be in place, and the Wildlife Warden should report steps taken in the next hearing.
"Let your wildlife warden tell us on next date what he is doing to protect them... Let there be green lungs in the city, like we have in Chennai, Bombay, and Jaipur," Justice Gavai added.
The Court reiterated that its central concern is the protection of the environment and any attempt to violate its 1996 judgment will not be tolerated. On the issue of land mortgage, Justice Gavai emphasized that the bench could act under Article 142 of the Constitution for environmental protection.
"Under Article 142, we can do anything. For protection of environment and ecology, we will go out of the way if needed," the judge declared.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Issues Notice to Chief Minister Siddaramiah and Others in MUDA Scam Probe Appeal
On April 3, the Supreme Court had instructed the Telangana government to halt all development in the area and warned that non-compliance would result in personal liability of the Chief Secretary. The Court also questioned the “alarming urgency” in initiating tree felling without conducting a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The Registrar (Judicial) of the Telangana High Court had submitted a report showing extensive deforestation using large machinery, and visuals showed wild animals such as peacocks and deer fleeing the scene, indicating the area was indeed a natural forest.
Key Questions Posed by the Supreme Court to the State:
- What was the urgency to begin developmental activities and remove trees from the forest land?
- Was an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted for the activity?
- Were proper permissions obtained for tree felling?
- What roles do the officers appointed to the committee have in forest identification?
- What happened to the trees that were felled?
Read Also:-
Background:
The issue began when the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) issued an order to alienate 400 acres of green land in Kancha Gachibowli to set up IT infrastructure. Large-scale tree felling began in March 2025, triggering protests and Public Interest Litigations (PILs).
PIL petitioners argued that the State's actions were in violation of Supreme Court precedents, particularly the Godavarman and Ashok Kumar Sharma rulings, which require forest identification using dictionary definitions and due process. The State maintained the land was industrial and claimed reliance on Google images in opposing arguments.
Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, K Parmeswar, Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, S Niranjan Reddy, and Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was also part of the case.
Case Title : IN RE KANCHA GACHIBOWLI FOREST, STATE OF TELANGANA
SMW(C) No. 3/2025 (and connected cases)
