Disposed

Anantha Seetharam Reddy v. State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

NGT2 Feb 2026Original Application No. 19/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal observed that the Achampet Lift Irrigation Scheme cannot proceed without obtaining mandatory environmental and wildlife clearances. It directed the proponent to pause all activities until approvals are duly obtained, citing departmental admissions of pending clearances.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the project proponent not to proceed with any activity concerning the project until all mandatory clearances are duly obtained.

Anantha Seetharam Reddy vs State of Telangana Rep. by Its… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.02:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Monday, the 02^nd day of February, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.19 of 2026(SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

1) Anantha Seetharam Reddy S/o. Anantha Sundhar Reddy 4-118/1, Balmoor, Mahabubnagar, Telangana- 509401.

¶8

2) Thalakanti Anil Kumar 13-1-84/2A, Madhavi Estate, Near Community Hal, Mothi Nagar, Moosapet, PO: Sanathnagar I E, DIST: Medchal-malkajgiri, Telangana – 500018.

¶9

...Applicant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1) State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500022.

¶12

2) Forest Department, Rep. by its Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500004.

¶13

3) The District Collector, Collectorate Compound, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana – 509209.

¶14

4) The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office, Achampet, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana – 509375.

¶15

5) The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana – 509401.

¶16

6) The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department, Irrigation Circle No.1, Collectorate Road, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana – 509001.

¶17

7) The Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department, Division no. 2, Division Office, Achampet, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana – 509375.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

8) The Executive Engineer,

¶20

Irrigation & CAD Department, Division No.3, Division Office, Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana – 509001.

¶21

9) M/s. BIPL KEPPL JL JV,

¶22

Rep. by its Managing Director, BHRUNDA INFRA PRIVATE LIMMITED 8-2-686/B/6/A, 12^th Square building, 3^rd floor, Road no.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034.

¶23

10) National Tiger Conservation Authority

¶24

Represented by its Member Secretary B-1 Wing, 7^th Floor, Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110 003.

¶25

...Respondent(s)

¶26

For Applicant(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff a/w. Mr. L. Suryaprabhu.

¶27

For Respondent(s): None.

¶28

CORAM :

¶29

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶30

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

1) The Original Applicants, who are permanent residents of Balmoor Mandal in Nagarkurnool District, have filed the above application challenging the proposed Achampet Lift Irrigation Scheme, also referred to as the „Uma Maheshwara Project.‟ The project involves the construction of a reservoir, earthen bund, canals, pump houses, and allied infrastructure for the purpose of irrigating an ayacut ranging from 57,200 acres in Stage I to 71,600 acres cumulatively.

¶33

2) It is alleged by the applicants that the project area is located at an approximate distance of 100 to 300 metres from notified Reserved Forests and within the ecological influence

¶34

Page 2 of 5

¶35

zone of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve, forming part of the larger Nallamala forest ecosystem, which is a nationally protected tiger landscape.

¶36

3) It is contended by the applicants that the authorities have not obtained the required statutory approvals, including the Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA ) Report. When the project is categorized under „B1‟, the same requires an Environmental Clearance preceded by an Environmental Impact Assessment and other appropriate clearances and approvals from the Forest Department, etc.

¶37

4) In this regard, it is to be noted that W.P. No.22927 of 2024 was filed by the applicant herein as 6^th Petitioner before the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st Respondent, who is the State of Telangana, in issuing G.O. Ms. No.14 dated 03.05.2023 without a Detailed Project Report as illegal and to stop the consequential operations.

¶38

5) The above-mentioned Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon‟ble High Court on 22.01.2025, wherein the Court observed as follows:

¶39

“6. In the present case, since the respondents have categorically stated in the counter affidavit that before commencing the Project, they have issued a notification, invited objections from affected persons, and that they will follow PESA Rules, 2011, and RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in respect of land acquisition, it is not a fit case to stall the Project at this stage. However, to meet the ends of justice, before taking possession of the petitioners' lands, the respondents shall consider the pending objections, if any, raised by the affected persons and ensure compliance with all mandatory requirements under G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 24.03.2011 and the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013.”

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

6) From the above, it is evident that already the respondents have given undertaking that they will follow the Andhra Pradesh Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Rules, 2011 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The objection raised by the applicants whose lands were acquired also directed to be considered before proceeding further.

¶42

7) In the present Original Application, the applicants have sought for a declaration that the project is located within the closed proximity to Reserve Forest and within the influence zone of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve and the same cannot be proceeded without prior clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, including the approval of the State Board for Wildlife and National Board for Wildlife. Additionally, it was stated that the area being water shed, a downstream impact assessment is mandatory.

¶43

8) It is alleged that the respondents have commenced their activity like excavation of canals, etc., even before they have obtained the Environmental Clearance.

¶44

9) The applicants draw strength from the communication issued by the Irrigation and CAD Department, Government of Telangana dated 08.01.2026, which was obtained by them under the RTI Act, wherein it is categorically stated that “The CWC approval, Environmental Clearances, and other required statutory approvals for Sri Umamaheshwara Reservoir under Achampet Lift Irrigation Scheme are under preparation stage”.

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

10) When the department concerned itself has categorically stated that it has not obtained the Environmental Clearance, the Project Proponent cannot proceed with the project without obtaining the same. No doubt, if the project area falls within a Tiger Reserve or any other protected area, even the authorities may not grant the Environmental Clearance. In such circumstances, proceeding with the project even before the appropriate approvals are issued would result in environmental degradation.

¶47

11) Hence, we make it clear that the respondents, who are the Project Proponent/State of Telangana, being a model citizen, are required to obtain all approvals, licences, and clearances as mandated by law before venturing into the project, wherein the relevant rules and guidelines mandate obtaining Environmental Clearance based on the DPR. When it is stated that the approvals are at the preparation stage, it appears that the Project Proponent has not yet even submitted its proposal. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Project Proponent not to proceed with any activity concerning the project until such approvals are duly obtained.

¶48

12) With the above direction, the Original Application [O.A. No.19 of 2026(SZ)] is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

Smt.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶53

Note:

¶54

Let the Registry communicate this order to the State of Telangana (Respondent No.1) by e-mail.

¶55

O.A. No.19/2026(SZ) 02^nd February, 2026.AD.

¶56

Page 5 of 5

Anantha Seetharam Reddy v. State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anantha Seetharam Reddy v. State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ambey Laboratories Ltd. vs Central Pollution Control Board through Zonal Directr

Paribesh Academy vs the State of West Bengal

Digambar Bhoi S/O- Jeherulal Bhoi Aged About- 51 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Tapan Kumar Lenka vs State of Odisha

M/S Sairam Realtors vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

M/S. Enviro Technology Limited vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Gujarat

Shri Raj Saubhag Satsang Mandal vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Aditya Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

S Lakshmikanthan vs the District Magistrate

I H Sekar vs Tnpcb Chennai District Office

Mrs Vasundhra vs Member Secretary Tnsczma Director Department of Environment and Climate Change

Suo Motu Activists Local Residents Question Legality of Tourism Development Work at Ooty Lake vs the District Collector Nilgiris

Sakhubai Patil vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Kspcb)

Venkateshwaran. S vs Vimal Raj M