Supreme Court Recalls 2019 Order Allowing Tree Felling Without Court's Permission In Taj Trapezium Zone

The Supreme Court has recalled its December 2019 order that had removed the requirement of obtaining prior permission to cut trees on non-forest and private lands within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while dealing with an application seeking exemption from the need for tree-cutting permission for agro-forestry activities.

The court had earlier issued notice to the applicant, asking why the order dated should not be recalled, as it seemed to allow unrestricted tree-felling.

The Court noted that the application lacked clarity on the meaning and concept of agro-forestry. Although the plea sought directions to promote agro-forestry, the Court observed that one of the prayer clauses also called for the modification of its earlier order dated May 8, 2015, which mandated prior approval from the Court for tree felling in the TTZ.

The applicant sought the removal of the requirement to obtain prior Court approval for felling trees on non-forest/private lands within the TTZ. The Court remarked that it might have been misled to believe the modification request was limited to agro-forestry.

“However, prayer clause "b" is for modification of order dated 8th May 2015 passed by this court which directs that no felling of trees can be made in the TTZ area without prior permission of this court. It is pertinent to note that prayer clause "b" is not limited to agro forestry. Fortunately for us, all the parties appearing before this Court stated on the last date that orders dated 8th May 2015 and 9th May 2018 are being implemented consistently notwithstanding order dated 11th December 2019. As the prayer "a" is in relation to agro forestry, perhaps the court was misled to believe that prayer "b" seeking modification is confined to agro forestry. In absence of any material on record to show what is the meaning and concept of agro forestry we recall order dated 11 December 2019”, the Court held.

The Court also directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to submit a report withing a month clarifying the meaning of agro-forestry and giving recommendations regarding the prayer to promote it. Parties were allowed to submit supporting material to the CEC.

Illegal Felling of 454 Trees in Mathura-Vrindavan

The Court also addressed the issue of the illegal felling of 454 trees in private land called Dalmia Farms in Mathura-Vrindavan. The Court had in December issued contempt notice to one Shiv Shankar Agarwal, who in his affidavit admitted to the act and submitted an unconditional apology.

Based on the CEC's recommendations, the Court directed the imposition of a Rs. 1 lakh penalty and compensatory afforestation. It noted that it would take at least 100 years to regenerate the green cover lost due to the illegal felling.

“It will take 100 years minimum to again regenerate or recreate the green cover created by 454 trees which were blatantly cut without permission of this court, though the embargo imposed by this Court is right from the year 2015”, the Court noted.

Justice Oka expressed strong disapproval of the incident, likening it to the killing of numerous human lives. “Such a brazen act of cutting 454 trees. It is like killing a large number of human beings. Or worse than that,” Justice Oka remarked.

Agarwal claimed to be unaware of Court's order imposing the condition of prior permission. However, the Court emphasized that the restriction on tree felling had been in place since 2015.

The Court noted that the Vrindavan Development Authority issued an order on October 23, 2024, directing that no construction approvals be granted for the concerned site until the matter was resolved by the National Green Tribunal.

Despite Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi's request for a reduction in the penalty and a request to conduct compensatory afforestation on an alternative site, the Court accepted the CEC's recommendations and maintained its directions.

The Court further ruled that any even if permission is granted by the authorities for construction on the land or any changes to it, the permission cannot be acted upon without the Court's approval.

“We accept the suggestions of CEC. We also direct that if permissions are granted to Mr. Shiv Shankar Agrawal to make any construction and the land in question or any change in relation to the land in question, the permission shell not be acted upon without leave of this court as this court will have to be fully satisfied regarding compliance made by Shri Shiv Shankar Agarwal of the recommendations which are quoted above.”

The contempt notice will remain pending until a compliance affidavit is filed, and the CEC certifies that all conditions have been met.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381/1984

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