Hyderabad: The state government has informed the Supreme Court that Kancha Gachibowli’s land is “not woodland” and its development “does not violate any law” and that the government “committed to ecological protection and lake protection” in the process of symbolizing the development of the land.
In a statement submitted to the Supreme Court at a hearing on Thursday on the matter, the government said its affidavit continued until the compliance affidavit filed on April 13 and that all further proceedings ceased the subject land under the court’s direction. ”
“The issues in this lawsuit concern the state government and TGIIC’s decision to develop the legality and effectiveness of the land on the subject, keeping in mind the long-term development goals of the country,” the government said.
It said the government’s “policy decisions to develop theme lands have been properly considered, taking into account the need to maintain the ecological balance in the theme lands and their surrounding areas. The proposed development forms part of a broader vision to promote planned urban infrastructure, attract investment, generate employment and contribute to the overall economic growth of the region.”
The affidavit also said, “The geographical location in the prestigious urban corridor is crucial for the state’s efforts to establish Hyderabad as a hub for high-value industrial, technical and service sectors. The government and TGIIC’s actions are aggressive and public interest to the public interest are the scope of its policy manufacturing and land management and land management.”
The government submitted documented evidence as part of the affidavit to show ownership of its land, he said the land involved belonged to the state government and alienated the TGIIC in accordance with appropriate procedures.
The affidavit explains that the land involves a lengthy lawsuit, developing the sports infrastructure with IMB Bharata and subsequent legal proceedings. “In the case of various proceedings, the land remains completely idle and unattended. Due to surgical legal restrictions, the government or its institutions cannot carry out any development, maintenance or land use activities,” it said.
In this context, the government explained that “as time goes by, natural vegetation, including shrubs, grasses and scattered trees, began to appear on a part of the land. This growth is a direct result of long-term non-use and lack of human activity, rather than due to any classification or treatment of the land as a forest.”
It said that the central premise of the petition challenge depends on “the wrong conception of land forming forest land and the incorrect assertion that facts are incorrect. On this error, the petitioner believes that the actions of the state are illegal and violate environmental and regulatory obligations. This claim is completely unbelievable in both the law and the official record.
The affidavit explains that “whether in the past or during the extended period of underutilization of the subject land,” any petitioner or any stakeholder, including the University of Hyderabad, would raise any objection or a representation, or a representation claiming that the subject land, or 25 surveyed forest land.
Infographic
The government said that the Kancha Gachibowli land was “deemed as a forest” and was not only in fact incorrect, but completely paradoxical.
If the land is to be considered as forest land, the claim will also apply to the entire 2374.02 acres of land, forming part of the survey No. 25.
This means that the long-term occupation of the University of Hyderabad, construction activities, including the establishment of campuses, buildings, four Helipads and other infrastructure, will be contaminated by forest and environmental laws.
Radiation in petition/temporary applications suggests that the argument lacks advantages and emphasizes the fact that the claim of forest characteristics is proposed later as an obstacle to the government’s legal development of land.
Steps taken in land parcels for ecological and wildlife conservation according to court directives. These include setting up sinks for wildlife, camera traps and CCTV cameras to monitor the area, track wildlife, and patrol land.
