HC declines to expand tree-felling PIL, reserves verdict

The Punjab and Haryana High Court was on Thursday shown a revenue map to demonstrate that the land where tree-felling had been “permitted” for a real estate project in Gurugram did not fall within the Aravalli area or the protected forest zones. Refusing to expand the scope of the suo motu PIL beyond allegations of tree-felling referred to in The Tribune report, the Bench – hearing the matter — also reserved its verdict in the matter.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry insisted that the matter would remain confined strictly to the issue of deforestation and not ancillary subjects such as wildlife. At the onset, the court specifically asked the State of Haryana to pinpoint on the map whether the land covered by the tree-felling licences lay within the green-marked Aravalli areas.

“In regard to which the felling of trees permission has been granted, which are those Khasras? Whether they are in… the green patch because green area, as you say, is the Aravalli and protected forests,” Chief Justice Nagu observed.

The Chief Justice also directed the State to mark on the map the precise Khasra numbers for which the Town and Country Planning Department had issued licences. The State, through its counsel, submitted that the documents, including revenue records filed on affidavit clearly showed that the land in question, along with the relevant Khasra numbers, did not form a part of either the Aravalli, Gair mumkin pahar or the protected forest. The government maintained that the requisite licences, some granted as far back as 1995, legally covered the 43-acre site and no laws were violated.

The Bench during the course of hearing observed that Gurugram conservator of forest had given an affidavit in the matter. “How do we treat this to be untrue?” The court added it had to depend upon the government map or the revenue records. “That is what we are asking the State counsel.” Counsel Deepak Balyan is representing the municipal corporation and Ankur Mittal is appearing for the State.

DLF, through senior advocates Randep Singh Rai and Chetan Mittal, aligned with the state’s stand, stating that the permissions were valid and legally sound. “They (the interveners) do not say anything incorrect about these permissions (to fell trees). The government is on affidavit to say we are not violative of any law,” counsel argued.

Emphasising the need for sustained development and a balanced approach, Chief Justice Nagu asserted: “Don’t enter into another field of wildlife. We are only dealing with flora. Sustained development means that we cannot live in jungles. We have, we need houses. We have to construct. All of us live in houses. When you have houses, you need to mine. You need to query minerals. Then a balanced approach needs to be made. The forests which are there need to be protected as far as possible. And the other development has also to be taken place,” Chief Justice Nagu added.

Concluding, the Bench noted that the suo motu proceedings arose solely from the newspaper item reporting large-scale tree felling. “Actually, we don’t want to enlarge the scope of this suo motu PIL, which we had registered. Just because I saw an article in the papers that a few thousand trees are being felled, I was a little disturbed, and we registered it. If the permission is there in accordance with law, then you have to challenge all those.” the Chief Justice said.

Haryana Tribune