Supreme Court takes firm stand on HCU land encroachment, orders immediate Wildlife Protection

The Supreme Court today expressed severe concern over environmental damage and deforestation at the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) land near Gachibowli, Telangana. It strongly criticised state authorities for alleged non-compliance with its earlier orders and raised alarm over illegal tree felling.

A bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai made sharp observations during the hearing, questioning Telangana authorities about the bulldozers reportedly used to clear about 100 acres of forested land without proper permissions. Justice Gavai underscored the court’s main concern: the illegal clearance of trees, stating firmly, “We are only concerned with the presence of bulldozers and erasing of the forest of 100 acres. If you wanted to construct, you should have taken permissions.”

The issue intensified further when Advocate Parmeswar revealed disturbing findings by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), highlighting that about 10,000 acres of notified forest land had been allegedly mortgaged to a private party. Parmeswar also criticised the Chief Secretary’s affidavit for omitting crucial details about this mortgage, saying, “Chief Secretary does not mention that in his affidavit, and today there is grand-standing that they will seek instructions on restoration!”

Justice Gavai firmly warned the state that failure to comply with environmental restoration could lead to severe consequences, including imprisonment for responsible officials. In a stark warning, Justice Gavai remarked to the state’s counsel, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, “We have already told Dr Singhvi that it’s up to the state whether it wants some of its officers to go to a temporary prison.”

The court also addressed wildlife concerns affected by this significant deforestation, with Senior Advocate Reddy intervening and submitting photographic evidence highlighting the lack of protection for wildlife from feral dogs. In response, Justice Gavai ordered immediate protective actions, instructing, “Let your wildlife warden tell us on the next date what he is doing to protect them.”

Advocate Parmeswar further raised concerns that private entities involved through the alleged mortgage might soon assert ownership claims, complicating the restoration efforts. Justice Gavai, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, emphatically asserted the court’s wide-ranging powers, stating, “Under Article 142, we can do anything. For protection of environment and ecology, we will go out of the way if needed. Let the state satisfy us how it overcame the 1996 order.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also emphasised that delays in identifying forest areas were causing repeated disputes, urging swift action. The court acknowledged these concerns, noting the urgency and severity of the situation.

In its interim order, the Supreme Court directed Telangana’s Wildlife Warden to take immediate measures to protect the wildlife adversely impacted by the deforestation. It clearly instructed that no further tree felling should occur and questioned if bulldozers were still on the site. Dr Singhvi humorously responded, “They are now unemployed bulldozers.”

The court has granted Telangana four weeks to comprehensively respond to the CEC report. The matter has been listed as the first item for further hearing on May 15, highlighting the urgency and gravity the Supreme Court places on this environmental case.