What Kancha Gachibowli makes visible

At the heart of the controversy, Kancha Gachibowli’s over 400 acres of land are multiple stakeholders: the Telangana government, the University of Hyderabad, students, environmentalists and political parties. Everyone treats land as a resource, protected area, asset or symbol in a different way. File | Image source: PTI

one Blind spots are the gap in our field of vision – the space we cannot see. However, we rarely notice it. The brain instinctively uses tips from the other eye and surrounding environment to fill in the blanks. One eye compensates the other. But there is no such compensation when it comes to how we manage urban land and design our cities. Sustainability is our collective blind spot – always exists, rarely recognized, and repaired with short-term fixes.

In Kancha Gachibowli in Hyderabad, the dispute over 400 acres has eased this blind spot drastically. The centre of the dispute is multiple stakeholders: the Telangana government, the University of Hyderabad, students, environmentalists and political parties. Everyone treats land as a resource, protected area, asset or symbol in a different way.

The ownership of the law is undisputed. What is controversial is everything else: what land represents, the people it serves, and what its future should be. For the country, auctioning land is a pragmatic move aimed at generating income, employment and supporting Hyderabad’s growth. Those who oppose the auction believe it is an act of ecological erasure, a reflection of how the intermittent community bonds and how development without a sustainable vision is pursued.

The land in question is not barren. It is ecologically rich. Over time, it has become a biodiversity hotspot, carbon sinks and hydrological significance obtained. It covers ancient rock formations, seasonal bodies of water, and a range of fragile flora and fauna. In cities with rising temperatures, the cooling function of this space is not only ecology – essential for urban habitability.

Despite decades of rhetoric surrounding “sustainable development”, urban land management is still operating in the short term. If performed, the environmental assessment is rough. Community is often confined to situations in the decision-making process. And the idea that certain spaces have value precisely because they are not touched (preservation is a form of progress) remain alien to the existing urban planning framework.

Legally speaking, the government stands on a firm basis: the land belongs to the state, confirmed according to income records and judicial announcements. However, the clarity of ownership by law does not mean how ownership is exercised. The applicable legal framework does not provide substantial guardrails for ecologically responsible land use. The result is a legal vacuum cleaner, in which decisions about our city are responsible for sustainability.

This vacuum reflects a deeper level of urban policy. On the surface, both the national urban policy framework and the overall state-level plan evoke sustainability, environmental management and inclusive growth. In fact, these principles rarely survive the test of business opportunities. The proposed Kancha Gachibowli auction is a textbook example.

What makes this moment even more shocking is the response to those who protest it. It is painful to make students silent or even forceful. This is a community that is not profitable, but driven by a shared sense of ecological responsibility. However, their objections are trampled upon by institutions designed to protect them. Despite the protests, the excavator entered and continued to clear the greenery, a cruel reminder of the vulnerability of our development imagination.

In a city full of underutilized commercial real estate, this move is not only short-sighted. This is meaningless. It reflects a way of thinking that still treats land as a commodity rather than a common, ignoring the planetary crisis around us. The content exposed by Kancha Gachibowli is not a lapse of legal authority, but a deeper visual error—this huge danger refuses to admit obvious views. This blind spot is no longer passive. It has become institutionalized. Countries with ownership and administrative mechanisms are approaching land with a transactional mindset, rather than rooted in people who have long-term management. What is needed is not only legitimacy, but is shaped by ecological vision and commitment to an inclusive, sustainable future for Hyderabad. Land is the optic nerve of our city – Kancha Gachibowli’s 400 acres of land showcase the depth of our blind spots. The question now is whether we have a will and a civic imagination – beyond it.

Navya Jannu is an advocate for the practice of the Supreme Court of India