Delhi High Court Orders Examination Of 60-Yr Old Peepal Tree On Senior Advocate's Plea; Says Prima Facie No Danger Of It Falling

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Deputy Conservator of Forest to examine a 60 year old Peepal tree in city's Inderpuri area, after prima facie observing that from the photographs, no danger of the tree falling could be seen nor any tilt or sagging was observed.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was dealing with a petition filed by Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, opposing felling of the tree situated near his residence. It was his case that the allegedly illegal action initiated by the authorities concerned was not backed by any valid order.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation submitted that an application was filed with the forest department seeking permission for felling of the tree on account of the fact that it has become dangerous due to digging of a nearby basement.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Deputy Conservator of Forest submitted that the permission was not granted for felling of the tree but for the purpose of transplantation.

"A perusal of the photographs show that instead of transplantation, an attempt was made to cut the tree for which permission was not granted," the Court observed at the outset.

"Prima facie the photos show that there was no danger of the said tree of falling down as no tilt or sagging of the tree is observed in the photograph. It is an admitted position that the building adjoining the tree stands already constructed, the basement is already digged up. Prima facie there was no danger of tree falling," the Court added.

Thus, the Court directed the deputy conservator of forest to examine the tree, and file a report as to whether the tree was dangerous or not.

"Let the report be filed. In the meantime, interim orders to continue," the Court added.

During the course of hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the local authorities were acting at the behest of the builders which is why removal was permitted.

"In transplantation, you have to dig up the roots. You will have to break the road. How can you give permission to transplant the tree and break someone's house?" the Court said.

Accordingly the matter was adjourned to November 26.

Earlier, the letter petition was mentioned before a bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli who had observed that irreparable harm will be caused not only to the environment but also to the residents of the locality if the tree was permitted to be cut without examining the plea.

Court had then granted time till November 9 to the petitioner to file a formal petition in accordance with the Rules pursuant to which the present petition was filed.

Case Title: N HARIHARAN v. MCD AND ORS.