The setback comes not from one but two separate petitions, both questioning the legality and environmental safety of the sweeping land-use conversion policy.
Published Dec 05, 2025 | 7:56 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 05, 2025 | 7:56 PM
The Telangana High Court. (Official website)
Synopsis: With two petitioners raising overlapping concerns, the controversy has now widened beyond purely environmental grounds to include questions of transparency and potential misuse of land policy.
The Revanth Reddy government ran into rough weather on Friday, 5 December, with the Telangana High Court issuing notices to the Centre and the State over the controversial Hyderabad Industrial Land Transformation Policy (HILTP).
The setback comes not from one but two separate petitions— one filed by environmentalist Prof. K. Purushotham Reddy and another by evangelist-politician K.A. Paul — both questioning the legality and environmental safety of the sweeping land-use conversion policy.
The bench, hearing Purushotham Reddy’s petition, was told that the government’s decision to convert 9,300 acres of long-notified industrial land into multi-use zones had been taken without conducting any scientific study or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Appearing for the petitioner, advocates K. Vivek Reddy and K. Prateek Reddy argued that the GO enabling such conversions runs afoul of multiple central and state laws.
According to the petition, the 2006 EIA Notification mandates prior clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment before allowing such large-scale residential or commercial use. Yet, the state government moved ahead without obtaining the mandatory permissions.
Prof Purushotham Reddy further contended that the GO violates the 2013 government order and HMDA regulations, both of which lay down stringent preconditions for repurposing industrial land.
He also raised objections to the proposal to alienate highly valuable lands at just 30 percent of the sub-registrar value within a six-month window, calling it arbitrary and harmful to public interest.
The petitioner warned that opening up active industrial clusters for residential development could endanger lakhs of people due to toxic chemical exposure if the transition is mishandled.
Adding another twist, K.A. Paul too approached the High Court with a petition challenging the very same HILTP policy. Paul’s plea similarly highlights alleged environmental violations, lack of due process, and risks posed to communities living around industrial belts.
He sought an inquiry either by the CBI or the ED and orders should be issued for forensic audit of the records. He prayed for a stay on the operation of the GO concerned.
With two petitioners raising overlapping concerns, the controversy has now widened beyond purely environmental grounds to include questions of transparency and potential misuse of land policy.
Responding to the barrage of allegations, Advocate General (AG) clarified that the government has no intention of permitting land conversion until all industries are fully relocated. He stressed that the very purpose of the HILTP is to streamline industrial relocation, not to dilute existing environmental safeguards.
The AG assured the court that the 2013 GO would not be undermined and that any future land-use change would proceed strictly after lawfully amending the HMDA Master Plan.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court issued notices to the Centre and State and directed the government to file its counter. Further hearing has been posted to 29 December.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
