Hyderabad: HC directs HMDA to identify, safeguard lakes & buffer zones

The High Court mandated that all lakes within HMDA's jurisdiction must have their Full Tank Level (FTL) and buffer zone boundaries clearly identified.

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has issued important directives regarding the identification and protection of lakes, water bodies, and their buffer zones within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA).

These orders were prompted by a public interest litigation filed by the Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell in 2023, which raised concerns about illegal encroachments.

Notably, the petition highlighted the construction of a building by the National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management (NITHM) in the buffer zone of Ramamma Kunta in Gachibowli.

The High Court mandated that all lakes within HMDA’s jurisdiction must have their Full Tank Level (FTL) and buffer zone boundaries clearly identified.

Also Read
Khajaguda lake encroachments: Telangana HC orders probe, urges action

The court stated that it would oversee this process until a final notification is issued for all lakes.

Additionally, it instructed the registry to register a suo motu petition to monitor these developments closely.

HC unhappy with the slow progress

As of November 14, the government reported that final notifications had been issued for 464 lakes, while an additional 3,068 lakes are still pending notifications.

The court expressed frustration over the slow progress, noting that only a small percentage of lakes had received their FTL notifications despite previous orders.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Srinivasa Rao emphasized that the public interest litigation should not be limited to just one lake but should encompass all water bodies within HMDA’s area.

They criticized the government for not adhering to earlier directives regarding FTL notifications. The court also addressed issues related to illegal constructions in buffer zones, particularly concerning NITHM’s building.

The government’s legal representation claimed that part of this structure had been removed; however, the petitioner’s lawyer countered that only a small section was affected and requested a joint survey to accurately assess the situation.

Looking ahead, the court has called for affidavits from both parties regarding their arguments and has postponed further hearings for two weeks to allow for these submissions.