CEC exposes how TGIIC tried to bypass laws in Kancha Gachibowli, rejects CM and Congress’ claims of ‘no wildlife’

The report also criticised the destruction of vegetation, wildlife habitats, and natural rock formations, calling the damage "irreversible."

Saicharan Sana

Published Apr 17, 2025 | 8:13 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 17, 2025 | 8:32 AM

Kancha Gachibowli.

Synopsis: A CEC report on the tree felling at the Kancha Gachibowli land in Telangana exposed systematic irregularities. The report also cast doubt on the permissions used by TGIIC. One of the main claims repeated by authorities was that the land belonged to the government, but even that isn’t so clear.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 16 April, lashed out at the Telangana government after referring to the report by a Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) and demanded a concrete restoration plan for the ecologically sensitive land in Kancha Gachibowli, or face jail time.

This follows its 3 April hearing, where it stayed the felling of trees by the Telangana Industry Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC) and ordered the submission of a detailed report by the CEC.

That report, accessed by South First, reveals far more than what was previously known, exposing legal irregularities, environmental violations, and procedural lapses across multiple departments. It paints a picture of obfuscation, overreach, and possibly deliberate attempts to bypass environmental safeguards in the name of development.

During the hearing, the apex court came down heavily on the state for its handling of the matter, warning that accountability was inevitable and that non-compliance would invite imprisonment.

With serious questions now raised about land use change, evasion of environmental clearance norms, and even land ownership, the Kancha Gachibowli case appears to be unravelling into something much deeper — and far more contentious — than just a forest clearance gone wrong. The CEC tells the story of a government that is not ready to play nice.

Related: Telangana police issues notice to its own IAS officer

The state leaves questions unanswered

Following the Supreme Court’s orders on 3 April, the CEC approached several officials, including the Telangana Chief Secretary, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Cyberabad Police Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District Collector, Ranga Reddy Divisional Forest Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ranga Reddy.

“To arrive at a logical conclusion in this matter, the CEC sought multiple sets of information from different officials of the State of Telangana,” the report said. Subsequently, the Ranga Reddy District Collector and Cyberabad Police Commissioner sent their responses but some of them were incomplete.

The report mentioned the unanswered questions, including one regarding the change in the land use of the area.

“Who has decided to change the land use of this area, even in the background of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order of December 2024 regarding the identification of the deemed forest area?” the CEC asked the officials.

It also demanded a copy of the note sheets regarding the change of land use. Apart from this, it also requested a copy of the entire file through which the land use — of the area under Survey Number 25 in the Kancha Gachibowli village — was changed for the Development of the IT/ Mixed Use Project.

Additionally, the CEC requested notes and correspondence relating to multiple files regarding the identification of forest-like areas in Telangana from the Department of Environment, Forests, Science, and Technology. However, the CEC did not receive the requested information or files.

The CEC also flagged an issue with the state’s compliance with the Telangana Water, Land, and Trees Act (WALTA). It questioned whether there is any exception for any species in WALTA and what action could be taken against an official filing a false report.

Overreach of WALTA

The Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act (2002) lists the procedure for any entity to fell a tree on a given piece of land. Even the government is required to identify the number of trees, pay a deposit, and commit to planting twice the seedlings if it wishes to cut some trees. To do the same, it has to seek approval by filing Form 13A with the Forest Department.

The TGIIC filed the form with the Shamshabad Divisional Forest Officer on 17 March. The Zonal manager filed it, stating that the tree species they were set to cut were exempt under WALTA. Following the DFO’s response on 20 March, the TGIIC paid a deposit and inspection fee on 29 March, undertaking the felling of trees on 30 March, a day later.

“Upon a close examination of Form 13A submitted by the concerned authorities, it is evident that the document lacks critical information necessary for any legally and environmentally sound tree-felling operation,” the CEC declared.

The form, annexed in its report, does not specify the species, girth, or height of the trees it wished to fell. Taking strong exception to the omission of crucial information, the CEC raised serious questions regarding the due diligence exercised in the process by the TGIIC and the Forest Department.

“There appears to be a lack of sensitivity and commitment towards the full and effective implementation of WALTA, undermining its intended purpose of sustainable natural resource management,” the CEC stated.

The state has maintained that the trees it cut are an exempt species under WALTA. However, under Article 40 of WALTA, the exemption only applies to parcels of land, not species. The CEC identified this discrepancy as the state was trying to go beyond the scope of the law.

Also Read: ‘Opposing restoration will land officers in prison”: Supreme Court

TGIIC ‘piecemealing’ to circumvent rules

Apart from the muddled implementation of WALTA, the CEC also noted glaring discrepancies between the TGIIC and the Forest Department. During the official meeting, the TGIIC informed the CEC that they sought permission to clear trees on 122 acres.

However, in the form that they furnished, the DFO mentions that 150 acres must be cleared. Further, the police were informed that all 400 acres were being cleared.

However, this was not the only time big numbers appeared small. “As part of the planned development, TGIIC prepared a detailed layout of 122.63 acres and the same was finalised on 15.01.2025. TGIIC applied to the Telangana Pollution Control Board for obtaining Consent for Establishment (CFE) permission for the extent of Ac. 122.63 gts. on 30.01.2025. The TGIIC received the CFE certificate from the Pollution Control Board on 03.03.2025,” the CEC explained.

However, the CEC questioned why TGIIC was seeking permission for only 122 acres in a 400-acre project. This is where a new problem came to light. Since 2006, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change specifies that projects over 50 hectares (123 acres) require an Environmental Clearance (EC).

In applying for just 122 acres, the TGIIC circumvents the need to develop detailed reports on the environmental impact of the project.

“The act of fragmenting or underreporting the total project area, often referred to as ‘piecemealing’, to avoid triggering EC requirements, has been consistently disapproved by this court,” the CEC noted.

It said that this action raises serious legal concerns regarding the TGIIC’s conduct and noted that this act seemed deliberate.

There is wildlife, and it is a forest

Throughout the course of the controversy, there have been many conflicting claims. While the chief minister said there were no animals on the land, others claimed it wasn’t even a forest. Some insisted all necessary permissions were taken, and many asserted that the land clearly belonged to the government. However, the CEC report tells a very different story.

On Wednesday, Justice BR Gavai raised serious concerns about the wildlife in the area, echoing the CEC report, which stated that the land is rich in biodiversity and home to several protected species listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

It also noted that, based on its natural features and ecological value, the area clearly resembles a forest. This could mean the land clearance violated key environmental laws and forest protection norms.

The report also cast doubt on the permissions used by TGIIC. One of the main claims repeated by authorities was that the land belonged to the government, but even that isn’t so clear.

According to the CEC, historical records show that the land was originally given to the University of Hyderabad through a conditional agreement, meant for educational use. Any change in use without proper approval should have been avoided. The committee warned that treating the land as unencumbered and using it for mortgages or other financial deals could be legally misleading and might put public assets at risk.

Also Read: Cabinet-berth aspirant MLAs in Telangana vent emotions

A deeper crisis at hand and irreversible damage

The CEC’s report makes it clear — this issue goes far beyond just cutting down trees. After meeting with around nine different delegations, including government officials, activists, ruling and opposition party members, students, teachers, and journalists, the committee concluded that what’s happening in Kancha Gachibowli reflected a much deeper crisis.

“This isn’t just about land clearance,” the report said, and added: “It’s about serious gaps in governance, institutional independence, and environmental responsibility.”

It also pointed to a worrying lack of action by the state when it came to protecting ecologically sensitive areas, reminding that under the public trust docrine, the government is supposed to act as a guardian of natural resources, not exploit them.

The report also criticised the destruction of vegetation, wildlife habitats, and natural rock formations, calling the damage “irreversible.” It raised the alarm about the possible misuse of public land for private benefit, and questioned why the TGIIC began clearing the land without preparing a Detailed Project Report (DPR) — a basic and necessary step for any major development.

Justice Gavai raised these concerns during the hearing and questioned the very intent behind the state’s actions.

(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)