The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday indicated that it would find ways to protect the green cover of Punjab while allowing essential infrastructure development as the state government and the National Highways Authority of India argued that its blanket ban on tree felling in December was stalling key infrastructure and commercial projects despite statutory permissions and compensatory afforestation measures being in place.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry was hearing a clutch of public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the cutting of trees for projects, including a proposed shopping complex in Mohali and the construction of roundabouts and a national highway stretch. The court had, in December, directed that no tree be felled in Punjab, citing abysmal tree cover.
Opposing the blanket nature of the ban, counsel for the state and NHAI submitted that the applicable tree preservation policy did not impose an absolute prohibition, but required avoidance of felling and permitted removal in rarest of rare cases after due consideration. They argued that in several cases, efforts had been made to avoid cutting trees, but expert committees had found redesign or realignment unfeasible.
A counsel for the petitioners said the Punjab Tree Preservation Policy emphasises avoidance, minimisation and compensatory plantation. The policy mandates that old and heritage trees, including species such as peepal, banyan and neem, be preserved, and that felling be recommended only in exceptional circumstances. Heritage trees are defined as those over 100 years old with historical, cultural or environmental value.
The counsel contended that commercial projects such as a shopping mall could not fall within the “rarest of rare” category and accused the authorities of treating compensatory plantation as a substitute for the policy’s primary objective of conservation. They also pointed out that Punjab’s forest and tree cover stood at about 5.9 per cent of its geographical area, far below the national average, and argued that executive instructions could not be diluted for convenience.
The state, however, maintained that all approvals had been obtained for the Mohali shopping complex, which was located on non-forest land earmarked for commercial use under the GMADA master plan. It said compensatory plantation was being carried out and that no heritage trees were involved.
NHAI, for its part, sought relaxation of the ban for a defence road project on the Abohar–Fazilka corridor, stating that about 75 per cent of the work had already been completed and compensatory afforestation worth Rs 15 crore undertaken. It warned that the blanket stay had brought work on several national projects to a standstill, even as the Punjab counsel said the ban had affected road safety interventions such as roundabouts recommended by traffic experts due to a high fatality rate on certain stretches of the state.
Story continues below this ad
During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly sought clarity on whether any heritage trees were proposed to be felled and directed the authorities to specifically identify such trees from the record. “The fundamental point is avoidance,” the court observed, indicating that permissions could not be granted mechanically.
The Bench also dealt with overlapping PILs. One petition relating to a 23-acre forest land in Sector 90, Mohali, was dismissed as premature, as clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests was still pending. The petitioner was granted liberty to revive the issue if approval was eventually granted. Issues relating to roundabouts and other projects were directed to be pursued in an existing PIL to avoid duplication.
Observing that a PIL ceases to remain the petitioner’s case and becomes “a baby of the court”, the Bench said it would regulate the proceedings and decide how the matters were to be dealt with.
The matters will now be taken up again on Friday, with the court asking the authorities to point out, with precision, whether any heritage trees were involved before it considered any modification of the blanket ban.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
