The Telangana High Court has turned the spotlight on the state government's handling of alleged encroachments around Salkam Cheruvu lake in Hyderabad, questioning whether authorities have diluted lake-protection norms and failed to act against educational institutions associated with AIMIM MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi. The irrigation department submitted to the court that Barrister Fatima Educational Institutions was on the lake's full-tank level area, reversing its previous stand. The 2016 FTL notification had shown that the institution was on the lake area.
During the hearing of a writ petition filed by activist Vijay Gopal on July 9, Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar raised a series of pointed questions over official records relating to the FTL area of the lake. The court expressed concern over apparent inconsistencies between the preliminary FTL notification issued in 2016 and the latest survey reports relied upon by the government.
The state maintained that a joint survey conducted by the irrigation department and other authorities found that educational institutions and the Salar-e-Millat Educational Trust were not located within the tank bed or the notified FTL of the lake. The government also informed the court that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had sought HYDRAA's superimposed FTL map for further action.
The bench, however, questioned the credibility of the exercise, observing that the contour map had been authenticated only by irrigation officials and lacked certification from the revenue department. Justice Shravan Kumar also asked how the notified water spread area of the lake appeared to have reduced over the years despite there being no recorded objections to the original notification. Any alteration to a notified FTL after a detailed survey required a convincing explanation, the court remarked.
The judge further sought answers on why a retaining wall had been constructed around the water body and why authorities had not carried out inspections for nearly a decade after the lake boundaries were notified. The court also questioned why the revenue department's findings had not been reflected in the government's submissions.
The petitioner alleged that repeated complaints about constructions within the FTL and buffer zone had gone unaddressed. He also challenged the trust's claim that it had sought regularisation under the Building Regularisation Scheme (BRS), arguing that the institution acquired the property only in 2017, even as it claimed to have filed a BRS application in 2016. He urged the court to examine the chronology of documents and also sought to implead the CBI and the Union Home Ministry.
Senior counsel representing the educational institutions argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner was neither directly affected nor had filed it as a public-interest litigation. The high court rejected that contention, observing that any citizen could approach a constitutional court to highlight alleged illegal occupation of public land or water bodies.
Significantly, the court referred to the Supreme Court's recent observations in the so-called "Bulldozer" judgment, noting that while due process must be followed before demolitions, encroachments on lakes, riverbeds and other public water bodies do not enjoy legal protection. It directed the Telangana Chief Secretary to submit, within three weeks, a detailed report on the state's compliance with the Supreme Court's directions regarding protection of water bodies.
The proceedings also exposed lapses within the school education department. Government counsel was unable to clarify whether the institutions had permission to run Classes I to X during the current academic year. The court criticised the department, along with HYDRAA, GHMC, HMDA and the Lake Protection Committee, for failing to file counter-affidavits despite notices having been issued more than 90 days earlier.
In a related development, Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy recalled an earlier status quo order obtained by the Salar-e-Millat Educational Trust after finding that another petition on the same issue was already pending before Justice Shravan Kumar's bench. The court held that the earlier order had been passed without full disclosure of the parallel proceedings, making its continuation inappropriate.
The high court has granted all respondents three weeks to file comprehensive replies and posted the matter for further hearing on July 30. The outcome of the case is expected to test not only the government's commitment to protecting Hyderabad's shrinking lakes but also the credibility of HYDRAA, the agency created to tackle illegal encroachments on public lands and water bodies.
