PIL seeks halt to Hyderabad Old City Metro works
The PIL seeks to halt Hyderabad Metro works until a Heritage Impact Assessment is completed and all mandatory approvals are obtained from the concerned authorities.
- Legal compliance at stake: The core question is whether the required Heritage Impact Assessment and statutory approvals under central and state heritage laws have been properly completed before construction began.
- Scope of protection: The petitioner’s argument that entire heritage precincts—not just individual monuments—must be protected could set a significant precedent for future infrastructure projects in historic zones.
- Trust in official assurances: The government’s affidavit that only three structures are directly affected, against the petitioner’s claim of 102 at-risk structures, highlights a deep disagreement over data and interpretation.
- Role of the court: By deferring a final order and calling for a detailed review, the High Court is signalling that it wants a fact-based, document-driven resolution rather than an immediate stay or blanket clearance.
- Public interest dimension: As a PIL, the case reflects broader civic concern about how Hyderabad balances modernity with memory, and whether heritage laws are being followed in spirit, not just on paper.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday, August 5, continued hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks to halt all construction work related to the Old City Metro Rail in the Charminar and Falaknuma heritage precincts, and other notified heritage zones. The petition, filed by the Act Public Welfare Foundation (APWF) and represented by its president, Mohammed Rahim Khan, argues that the project is moving ahead without the statutory safeguards required to protect Hyderabad’s historic fabric.
At its core, the PIL seeks suspension of Metro works until a detailed Heritage Impact Assessment is conducted and all mandatory approvals are secured under the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The petitioner contends that any activity affecting a notified heritage precinct—whether or not a listed structure is directly acquired—requires prior clearance from the designated heritage conservation committee.
According to the petition, the government initially stated that no heritage or religious structures would be impacted by the alignment, but later admitted that three structures were affected. The petitioner, however, pointed to official records that identify six Grade‑1 heritage structures and a total of 102 heritage and sensitive structures along the proposed Metro route. He also submitted photographs before the court, alleging damage to certain structures despite the government’s claim that no demolition had taken place.
Government’s response
Opposing the petition, the state government said the allegations were incorrect. Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan told the court that only a few notified heritage structures were linked to the Metro alignment and that several identified buildings would neither be acquired nor disturbed. The government submitted a detailed affidavit showing the status of each heritage structure along the proposed route.
Referring to the photographs placed before the court, the government said structures such as Aliabad Sarai and the old MCH building at Darulshifa remained intact. It added that while some nearby private properties had been removed, the notified heritage buildings had not been demolished.
Petitioner’s counter-argument
In their response, the petitioner argued that the case involved protecting entire heritage precincts and not just individual buildings. He submitted that even if a listed structure is not acquired, any work affecting a notified heritage area requires prior approval under the Telangana Heritage Act. The counsel also sought the appointment of an independent commissioner to inspect the ongoing works and verify if they were affecting any heritage structures.
Court’s stance and next steps
After hearing both sides, the High Court said it would examine all the documents and submissions before issuing further directions. The bench observed that a comprehensive review of the entire record is necessary before reaching a final decision. The matter has been adjourned to August 27 for the next hearing.
For now, the Old City Metro Rail remains caught between pillars of progress and precincts of history, with the High Court’s next hearing likely to shape how the city moves forward—literally and culturally.