SC takes suo motu cognizance of mass tree felling at Kancha Gachibowli, halts activity till April 16

The bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih warned that the Telangana Chief Secretary would be held personally responsible for any non-compliance.

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of large-scale tree felling at Kancha Gachibowli in Telangana and ordered halting of all activities except for tree protection and directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to inspect the site and submit a report by April 16.

The bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih warned that the Telangana Chief Secretary would be held personally responsible for any non-compliance.

---

The court noted that the Registrar (judicial) of Telangana High Court had visited the site following orders issued on Thursday morning and found extensive development activities in the area, despite prior orders aimed at safeguarding forest land.

“The report depicts an alarming picture – hundreds of trees have been felled, heavy machinery is in use, and the land is being disturbed over 100 acres,” the order stated. The presence of peacocks, deer, and a nearby lake further indicated that the area was a wildlife habitat and also catchment area for the lake.

Recalling its March 4, 2025, order, the apex court pointed out that States were required to constitute expert committees under Rule 16(1) of the 1923 Rules within a month and complete their assessments within six months. It expressed dismay over the urgency shown by Telangana government in commencing large-scale development work just two days after forming its committee. “It is difficult to appreciate the alarming urgency,” the court observed.

In light of these concerns, the court directed that the case be formally registered as a suo motu writ petition titled Kancha Gachibowli Forest. It also sought a detailed response from the Chief Secretary of Telangana, questioning the rationale behind the felling of trees, whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate was obtained, and whether necessary permissions from forest authorities were secured.

Further, the court questioned the inclusion of certain officials in the State-constituted committee, suggesting that they had no role in forest identification. It also demanded an explanation on the fate of the felled trees.