Taj Trapezium | Won't Allow Trees To Be Cut So Easily: Supreme Court Asks CEC To Examine If Tree Felling Is Necessary To Build Road

While hearing a public interest litigation with respect to the environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court today asked the Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine whether the road construction proposed for the State of Uttar Pradesh could take place without felling 3874 trees.

Calling the State's application (for felling of 3874 trees on the basis that they would be affected by proposed construction of Agra-Jalesar-Etah road in the State) "vague", the Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan deprecated the manner in which the same had been filed and said, "we will not allow trees to be cut so easily".

"As Article 51A mandates that it is duty of every citizen to save trees, we also reiterate that it is also the responsibility of the State to ensure that maximum number of trees are protected."

It directed the applicant/State to provide a sketch of the proposed alignment of the road, demarcating the 3874 trees, and requested the CEC to ascertain within 1 month whether without compromising on the alignment of the proposed road, it was possible to save few of the trees.

On Senior Advocate ADN Rao, acting as Amicus Curiae in the matter, pointing out that in another matter, the CEC was unable to submit its report on examination of similar issues as the alignment itself had not been approved by NHAI, the court directed that the CEC must also examine in the present case as to whether alignment of the proposed road has been approved by the National Highway Authority.

Listing the application for March 12, 2024, the court added that in the meantime, the State may ensure that the Divisional Forest Officer gives a Report regarding the feasibility of translocation of some of the trees. The State was also asked to place material on record to show as to where it proposes to do compensatory afforestation.

Courtroom Exchange

During the hearing, the court expressed displeasure at the fact that the State's application claimed that it would procure a land for compensatory afforestation, but no land had been allotted. Justice Oka said, "just see how vague is the application...you say we have made application to government allotted site...how can this be permitted unless you come out with special [inaudible] where you intend to replant?"

Giving the example of Bangalore metro, Justice Oka reminisced that a number of applications were made in that case for felling of trees, but when the court asked an expert authority to examine if certain trees could be saved, including by way of transplantation, atleast 5-10 trees were saved by every order of the court.

Further, it was emphasized that compensatory afforestation has to be in the closest proximity of the place where the existing trees are situated. The court added, "unless the applicant comes out with material that a land has been allotted, we are not going into the question at this stage whether compensatory afforestation will be sufficient and whether translocation is also required to be done in respect of some of the trees."

On a query raised as to where compensatory afforestation was sought to be done by the State, counsel for UP informed that the authorities were looking at Agra. The Amicus apprised that 2 areas were falling for e-compensation, one in Agra and another in Etah. Insofar as Agra is concerned, part of land has been allotted but in Etah, it is still to be allotted.

Perusing report No.2/2024 submitted by CEC, the Bench observed that a direction had been issued to the Divisional Forest Officer, Agra to examine whether it is possible to translocate some of the trees. However, the DFO has not come out with answers.

Oka, J: "Trees must be 100 years old...that aspect needs to be considered by some expert body...application is always for felling large number of trees, more than what is required"

The Amicus replied that the cost of transplanting in some cases may be so high that it is not worth undertaking.

Oka, J countered: "they [State] will bear the costs...if trees have to be saved, they have to do it..."

Taking note of the CEC Report, the Bench concluded that the Committee needed to examine whether it is possible to save some trees. On the Amicus conceding that the feasibility of translocating certain trees remained to be examined, it was suggested that the CEC may look into it after considering the alignment of the proposed road.

Background

The Taj Trapezium Zone is a defined area of 10,400 sq km around the Taj Mahal formed to protect the monument from pollution and includes World Heritage Sites like the Taj Mahal, Agra Fort and Fatehpur Sikri. The Apex Court in December, 1996 had banned the use of of coal/ coke in industries located in the TTZ, in response to a PIL filed seeking protection of Taj Mahal from environmental pollution.

However last year, the Supreme Court lifted its earlier complete ban on construction, industrial activities and felling of trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone and permitted the industrial units, which do not spread pollution and are in compliance with the rules, to function, after getting a No Objection Certificate from the Ministry of Environment.

Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (In Re: Taj Trapezium Zone), WP(C) No. 13381/1984

Click Here To Read/Download Order