4 min readDec 5, 2025 07:11 PM IST
First published on: Dec 5, 2025 at 07:11 PM IST
The Telangana High Court Friday directed the government to file its counter affidavit while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the state’s ambitious urban reform, Hyderabad Industrial Land Transformation Policy (HILTP), and the government order sanctioning it.
The Division Bench of Justices P Sam Koshi and Suddala Chalapathi Rao was hearing two similar PILs filed by petitioners K A Paul and Prof K Purushotham Reddy. The PIL targeted the Government Order (GO Ms No 27 of 2025) issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce, arguing that the policy posed significant environmental risks and lacked proper legal and environmental clearances.
The order dated November 22, 2025, deals with the conversion of industrial-zoned land into multi-purpose use on an application basis, i.e., for the construction of schools, hospitals, and residential units.
Senior Counsel K Vivek Reddy, appearing for Prof Reddy, informed the court that 9,295 acres in the city have been classified as industrial land in the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HDMA) Act, and that the 2013 master plan mandates that no activity other than industrial is allowed in this area.
He further contended that according to GO 20 of 2013, all industries shall be first moved outside the outer ring road (ORR) and only after they are moved out and effluents removed, land use can be modified to multi-purpose.
The senior counsel argued that GO 27 of 2025 dispenses with the mandatory provisions of the HMDA Act, which mandates that the zonal allocation made in the master plan cannot be modified or the nature of usage cannot be changed without modification of the master plan. For modification, HMDA must notify and call for public objections, he added. It was also contended that the law mandated that there could be no coexistence of residential units within industrial zones.
“You (state government) are seeking to amend the master plan without following the statutory process of issuing public notice. You cannot have a selective change in land use based on who is paying. And you cannot have industrial activity contiguous to residential,” Reddy stated.
In response, Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, appearing for the state, claimed that any apprehensions that HMDA regulations or notifications would be violated are only presumptuous. He maintained that the state was taking policy steps to remove polluting industries from within the Greater Hyderabad area.
Sudarshan Reddy said the GO 20 of 2013 “is not being done away with, but the new GO 27 is only in continuance with the 2013 GO.” While seeking time to file a detailed counter affidavit, the AG stated that for any change of land use, “notification would be issued and people would have the opportunity to make their applications as well as objections.”
“There has been a furore asking for these industries to be removed from within the city, and a first step of a policy decision is being taken by the state. Once and for all, these polluting industries are to be removed from the GHMC [Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation] limits,” the law officer said.
AG Sudarshan Reddy agreed when the bench observed that “these polluting units are intended to be shifted out, and it is for them that the scheme has been brought in, and after they are shifted, their land use, which is industrial, will be given for multi-use.”
Hearing contentions from both parties, the court adjourned the matter for further hearing to December 29.
The Telangana High Court has sought a detailed response from the state on PILs alleging that the HILTP violates HMDA rules and bypasses mandatory land-use procedures. (File Photo) 
Share
