Supreme Court stays tree felling in eco-sensitive zone of Hyderabad’s KBR National Park

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the felling of trees in the eco-sensitive zone around Kasu Brahmananda Reddy (KBR) National Park in Hyderabad and issued notice on a petition challenging the move to cut trees for road development.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan directed that there shall be no tree felling in the 25 to 35-metre eco-sensitive zone around the park.

The interim order was passed on a special leave petition filed by Kaajal Maheshwari, who had challenged the Telangana High Court’s refusal to grant interim relief in a pending public interest litigation.

The petitioner contended that the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around KBR National Park — an ecologically sensitive urban forest and one of Hyderabad’s key green lungs — was arbitrarily reduced from the originally proposed 25 to 35 metres to a width varying between just 3 metres and 29.8 metres.

This drastic dilution, it was argued, defeats the very purpose of an ESZ, which is meant to act as a “shock absorber” for the protected area. KBR National Park was notified under Section 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

The petition claimed the initial proposal between 2012 and 2015 was to have a 25-35 metre eco-sensitive buffer, including the green buffer developed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA).

However, this was allegedly diluted at the instance of the State government to facilitate infrastructure projects, particularly the Strategic Road Development Plan (SRDP).

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued the final notification on October 27, 2020, fixing the narrow ESZ.

The petitioner claimed the reduction was not based on any scientific ecological study but was driven by infrastructure needs and to avoid land acquisition costs.

The plea also highlighted procedural lapses, stating that over 19,000 people had signed a petition opposing the dilution, but their objections were not properly considered.

It further alleged that the State government wrongly claimed that a public hearing was held before finalising the notification.

The court will now hear the matter upon assessing the response by the authorities.