Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice Over Illegal Tree Felling In Mathura-Vrindavan, Asks UP Govt To Consider Amending Tree Preservation Act

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 29) issued contempt notes to owners of Dalmia Farm, a private land in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) for felling 454 trees in the area without prior permission of the Court.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning illegal tree felling in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

“Prima facie we are of the view that the persons mentioned in paragraph 8 of the report are guilty of civil contempt. Hence we issue notice to them returnable on 16th December calling upon them to show cause as to why action under the contempt of courts act should not be initiated against them”, the Court stated.

Additionally, the Court ordered that tree-felling activities for which permission is granted must not take place between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the TTZ area.

The court also requested the Uttar Pradesh government to consider amending the Uttar Pradesh Tree preservation Act to enhance the penalties and the amount permissible for compounding of offenses of violation of the Act.

“We find that the provisions regarding penalty under section 10 and 15 are inadequate and are not sufficient to deter persons from illegally felling trees. Even the amount on the basis of which offence can be compounded as mentioned in Section 15 is too low. We request the state government to have a relook the sections and consider amending the same suitably for enhancing the amount mentioned in the sections 10 and 15”, the Court stated.

The Court was dealing with recent illegal felling of 454 trees in private land in the Mathura-Vrindavan area for construction of a colony, as detailed in a report submitted by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

Supreme Court noted that the tree felling violated prior Court orders of the Supreme Court dated May 8, 2015 (undertaking by TTZ Authority that no felling of trees in TTZ will take place without first obtaining permission of Supreme Court), and December 8, 2021. The bench stated that the persons named in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report appeared to have committed civil contempt.

Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate ADN Rao suggested that the Court order a restriction on tree felling after 6:00 p.m., noting that most instances of illegal felling occur at night.

Justice Oka asked whether there was a law addressing tree felling. Rao referred to the Uttar Pradesh Tree Protection Act.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that cases had been registered against the landowners for illegal tree felling under various statutes, including the Uttar Pradesh Tree Protection Act, the Indian Forest Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, and the Environment Protection Act. Bhati further suggested that issuing contempt notices would further empower authorities to act against the violation.

The Court described the findings of the CEC report as “shocking.” The report revealed that 454 trees were felled illegally on the night of September 18-19, 2024. Of these, 422 trees were on private land, referred to as Dalmia Farm, located on the Vrindavan-Chatikara road in Mathura district, while the remaining 32 trees were from a roadside protected forest adjoining the private land.

The Court issued notices to the landowners named in paragraph 8, directing them to appear on December 16, 2024, and show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated. It also ordered a status quo on any work or construction at Dalmia Farm.

The Court directed the Registry to forward the notices to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mathura, for service. The SP was directed ensure that the SHO of the local police station visits Dalmia Farm to prevent further tree felling or construction.

Tree Census and Penalty Provisions

Last week, the Supreme Court had emphasized the need for a tree census and a mechanism to prevent unauthorized tree felling in the TTZ.

Today, Justice Oka asked whether the Uttar Pradesh Tree Protection Act includes provisions for a tree census. Counsel for the parties stated that it does not. Justice Oka emphasized that a tree census is necessary, directing the parties to take instructions on how it could be conducted.

ASG Bhati suggested that the Forest Survey of India (FSI), which has expertise in conducting tree cover surveys, could undertake the task. Justice Oka proposed directing the FSI to conduct the census, starting with the TTZ area. The matter will be addressed further on December 16.

ASG Bhati also highlighted the inadequacy of penalty provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. She pointed out that the penalty for violations under Section 10 is only Rs. 1,000 and requested the Court to consider issuing directions to enhance penalty, at least in the TTZ area.

The Court, in its order, noted that Sections 10 and 15 of the Act impose inadequate penalties that fail to deter illegal tree felling. It requested the Uttar Pradesh government to reconsider and amend these sections to enhance the penalties and the amount permissible for compounding offenses.

The matter has been adjourned to December 16, 2024.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381/1985

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.