Telangana Government's New Land Transformation Policy In Trouble

Telangana's ambitious land-use policy - the Hyderabad Industrial Land Transformation Policy - hit a legal roadblock Friday after the state's High Court admitted a public interest litigation filed by veteran social activist K Purushotham Reddy.

The court issued notices to all named respondents, including Chief Minister Revanth Reddy's administration and the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, as well as the union health and environment ministries, and directed them to file counter-affidavits.

Implementation of the policy has not been formally stayed as yet.

However, issuing of notices signifies that all actions taken by the state from this point will be subject to a final ruling, whenever it does come, thereby placing the policy in judicial limbo.

The judicial review will determine the regulatory framework for converting industrial zones into urban hotspots, impacting the city's development trajectory for decades.

The policy, called HILTP, was conceptualised by the state to repurpose underutilised or defunct industrial areas around Hyderabad, primarily those within or near the Outer Ring Road (ORR) limits, such as Kukatpally, Balanagar, and Nacharam.

The policy intends to generate revenue by levying a significant one-time Development Impact Fee (DIF) on plot owners seeking land-use conversion; the DIF is reportedly 30 to 50 per cent of the Sub-Registrar Office rates.

It also intends to promote urban integration by transforming decades-old and often-polluting industrial estates into integrated, multi-use urban centres.

However, opposition leader KT Rama Rao has alleged a Rs 4.5 lakh crore land scam.

The plea filed by Purushotham Reddy, an 82-year-old retired Hyderabad-based professor, has argued the HILTP constitutes a major policy deviation that threatens the ecological balance and foundational city-planning principles of Hyderabad.

Key concerns raised in the petition include environmental impact, like failure to secure adequate environmental clearances or conduct comprehensive impact assessments for the massive construction activity expected.

The petitioner also argued HILTP will put extra strain on infrastructure.

Repurposing thousands of acres for dense residential and commercial use will place an unsustainable burden on existing civic infrastructure like water, sewerage, and transportation.

It is also alleged to be a violation of the city's Master Plan. The blanket GO, or Government Order, supersedes and violates established zonal regulations and the objectives of the city's Master Plan without sufficient democratic process or public consultation, it is argued.

The petitioner is also challenging the public interest angle, i.e., whether the revenue-generating move truly serves the public interest or it primarily benefits real estate developers and industrial owners.

If the court finds merit in the arguments, it could either lead to the cancellation of the government order or the government could be forced to conduct rigorous environmental and infrastructure reviews, drastically reworking the policy to ensure compliance with urban planning and environmental laws.