In a significant win for environmental protection in the southern state of Telangana, the Supreme Court intervened to halt deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli region of Hyderabad. In Re: Kancha Gachibowli Forest, State of Telangana, the court issued a strong directive to prevent further felling of trees and displacement of wildlife, stalling the state government’s plans to auction the cleared land for the development of an IT park.
The issue came into focus when, on festivals of Ugadi and Gudi Padwa, the Telangana government began cutting down more than 400 trees overnight, clearing more than 40 hectares of forest. The site, reportedly part of the University of Hyderabad campus although not officially owned by the university, is home to eight species of protected wild animals. The sudden deforestation sparked immediate protests by students and environmental activists, who gathered at the site, and urged the media and social platforms to highlight the situation.
By 3 April 2025, the matter had reached the Telangana High Court via two writ petitions filed by the Vata Foundation and Kalapala Babu Rao. The high court ordered the government to halt all development at the site. That same day, the Supreme Court took suo moto (without request) cognisance and directed the registrar (judicial) of the Telangana High Court to conduct a site inspection and file an interim report within hours.
The registrar’s report confirmed that large numbers of small, medium and large trees had been destroyed. The forest area of more than 40 hectares hosted flora and fauna including deer, peacocks and birds. The Supreme Court recorded these findings and directed the chief secretary of Telangana to respond to its queries. It also ordered that no activity other than tree protection take place on the land, and warned that the chief secretary would be personally liable for any violations.
The legal framework includes the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, which require each state and union territory to form regional expert committees to identify forests and forest-like lands. Under rule 16(1), these committees must prepare records of such lands. Rule 16(2) mandates that tree felling on approved forest land must be minimal and supervised by the local forest department. Any forest produce obtained must be handed over to the forest department, preferably to meet local domestic needs.
The Supreme Court reiterated these requirements in Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd.) v Union of India, directing states and union territories to form expert committees within a month and complete surveys within six months. It had also repeatedly barred governments from reducing forest land without providing compensatory land, through its orders dated 30 November 2023, 19 February 2024 and 3 February 2025.
In Telangana, the expert committee was formed on 15 March 2025, just two weeks before the incident. No comprehensive surveys or mandatory procedures under rule 16(1) were conducted. The registrar’s report documented the presence of a natural lake and diverse vegetation. Had the survey been completed, the land may have been formally recognised as such, preventing the unsupervised and large-scale destruction.
The Supreme Court also questioned what happened to the timber from the felled trees. The timing of the tree-felling, 30 March 2025, coincided with a long weekend and multiple festivals. This has led to suspicions that the move was strategically timed to avoid media attention and judicial oversight.
The Supreme Court’s rapid and effective response is commendable. Its direction for a same-day site visit and interim report demonstrated urgency and a commitment to environmental protection. The court’s swift action ensured that the entire forest was not lost by the time of the next hearing. It also underscored the message that no government is above the law and that environmental responsibility must be upheld.
The Kancha Gachibowli case is a landmark example of timely judicial intervention, legal clarity and civil society action working together to safeguard the environment.
The dispute digest is compiled by Numen Law Offices, a multidisciplinary law firm based in New Delhi & Mumbai. The authors can be contacted at support@numenlaw.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
