Being Custodian, It's The State Which Must First Assess If Tree-Felling Is Even Required: Supreme Court

While hearing a public interest litigation with respect to the environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 6) expressed displeasure at private parties seeking permission to fell trees for industrial projects without first approaching the custodian of subject land (ie State) and/or providing a concrete plan for compensatory afforestation.

The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said, "without consent of government of UP, such applications should not come...unless you have parted with the land, somebody has been allotted the land, such person can apply...State government's land, State's presence has to be there."

Observing that entities keep approaching the court saying that State of UP has allowed them access to land, the court orally remarked to UP's counsel that the State must apply its mind on whether it is necessary to fell trees or some other land can be allotted, as well as how people are applying without there being any allotment letter by the State.

The Bench was hearing an application seeking permission to fell 28 trees in UP to provide access to the applicant's petrol pump. A road was to be constructed on public land to provide entry/exist to the petrol pump, and for that purpose, 28 trees were sought to be fell.

Perusing the application, the court noted that the applicant had nowhere stated in its application that it was the owner of the land on which trees were sought to be felled. Instead, the applicant's counsel admitted that the approach road was to be constructed on a property vesting in the State of UP. To quote Justice Oka,

"This is very shocking, you are not the owner of (land on) which these trees are situated, you are applying for permission...it's not your property...you want to apply for cutting trees on somebody else's land without consent of that somebody else, what is this going on?"

It was further observed that the applicant had not provided a concrete plan wrt compensatory afforestation. "On which land are you going to do compensatory afforestation?" Oka, J asked the applicant's counsel.

The counsel replied, "the land has to be identified by the Forest Department".

Not finding merit in the submission, Oka J said, "you must make out a case that you have a site available in close proximity where the trees exist today, on which you are willing to do compensatory afforestation".

At this point, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate ADN Rao informed the court that when alignment of a road is changed because of entry/exit, the land falls under PWD. But PWD does not come forward, and as a result, the project proponents' project is held up and they approach the court.

Taking note of the issue, the court asked the applicant's counsel to atleast show any letter/order of the government allocating the subject land in favor of the applicant for construction of an access road, or permitting it to carry out such construction.

The applicant's counsel failed to show any such letter/order and conceded that the land for access road had not been allocated to the applicant. However, she added that the existing procedure was such that the land continued to remain with PWD.

"Only because somebody wants to carry out work, should we allow people merrily to remove the trees?" Oka J asked.

Dismissing the applications at this stage as "misconceived", the court opined, "State is custodian of trees, first the State has to be satisfied that for this kind of a work it is necessary to fell the trees...these are matters we should not take casually and we are not going to take casually...every single tree has to be saved".

Before parting with the order, it gave liberty to the applicant to make fresh applications, provided the same contains all materials in support of the prayer.

Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 13381/1984