High Court refuses to grant interim stay on tree-felling for DLF project
Just about a fortnight after the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu notice of the Tribune report alleging felling of 2,000 trees across 40 acres reportedly to make way for a real estate project, a Division Bench today did not grant stay in the matter. “There is no question of any stay. We will take it up next week,” the court asserted.
Taking up the suo motu or “court on its own motion” case, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry asserted it was prima facie clear on record that DLF was having “legitimate” permission. “Now, if you insist, I can reject your interim prayer,” the Chief Justice added.
The Bench, at the same time, directed DLF to place before the court the licence granted for developing the project. “After hearing the counsel for the parties for a while, this court is of the considered view that the relevant licence granted in the favour of respondent-DLF by the Haryana town and country planning sometime in 1995-96 is required to be produced. Therefore, the DLF is directed to produce the licences for the area in question in regard to which the permission for felling of trees has been granted”.
Counsel Deepak Balyan is representing the municipal corporation and Ankur Mittal is appearing for the state, while senior advocates Randep Singh Rai and Chetan Mittal are representing DLF.
The Bench asserted that forest department had given respondent-DLF permissions. “Now, either you challenge those permissions, which appear to be prime facie lawful… If you get a favourable order from the higher court, well and good, otherwise (you have to see) the next remedy against permission to fell trees? There must be an appeal or something”.
A counsel appearing for one of the applicants seeking intervention submitted earlier during the course of hearing that a “designated place” on the government land in the area earmarked for a school had been converted into a stockyard for the private builder for keeping construction material, while referring to the permissions granted to the respondent by the state.
Seeking ad-interim stay, retired professor-cum-advocate Amita Singh claimed 40,000 trees had already been removed. “They have already cleared off 50 acres and now hardly 40 acres is left. You need to give an ad-interim stay. Kindly appoint an amicus and a local commissioner so that we proceed little more legitimately. It’s a fight between a David and a Goliath. You have to take consideration to the fact that they are very powerful people and in nexus they are more powerful”.
Another applicant Lt Col Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi also raised certain issues while seeking appointment of an amicus curiae.
In its reply, the Forest Department, on the other hand, said that the permission granted was conditional and not absolute. “Permission has been granted for felling of 2788 trees. Out of which 1623 are of Prosopis juliflora of kikar trees. Further, the concerned applicant (DLF) has been asked to transplant 79 trees after taking into consideration their species, age, other factors, which primarily includes ‘peepal’ and ‘bargad’ trees,” the report added.
Referring to “commensurate afforestation” in lieu of the felled trees, it said the applicant had been directed to plant 10 times the number of trees to be felled. “Around 28000 trees are to be planted by the applicant during the coming monsoon season,” it said.
The DLF added approximately 43.97 acres where the alleged illegal felling was claimed to have been carried out, was in fact their privately owned land. “It fell within the residential zone’ under all the notified master plans of Gurugram which have been passed under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act. In fact, substantial portion of land was purchased by it between 1989 and 1996 and had been in its possession since then. Even prior to its purchase by the respondent, the land was privately owned.”
Before parting with the case, Chief Justice Nagu asked both the interveners to file relevant documents while asserting: “The deeper you go into this, you run the risk of costs if ultimately your contentions are found to be untrue”. The case will now come up on July 10.
Haryana Tribune