Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 722 (MP)

Raj Kumar Chaddha v. State of M. P.

2021-11-10

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, ROHIT ARYA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner styling himself as a social activist being part of various bodies engaged in public services, has approached this Court seeking quashment of Annexure P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4 and restraining respondents from falling of trees ensuring maintenance of environmental and ecological balance. 2. In response to notices issued, the respondents No. 4 and 5 have filed a reply. It appears prolonged proceedings have taken place on different dates of hearing. On 26.8.2021, the Coordinate Bench had constituted a team of Officers and Bar members for the purposes of conducting physical survey of all the trees standing on 30 hectares and 13 hectares and submit report which should contain atleast the following details : (i) Number of trees; (ii) Age of each tree; (iii) Specie of each tree; (iv) Girth of the trunk of each tree; (v) height of each tree; (vi) Location of each tree. 3. The committee was set at liberty to seek guidance from the parameters laid down in M.P. Vrikshon Ka Parirakshan (Nagariya Kshetra) Adhiniyam, 2001. The reports in compliance of the said order has been placed on record by the Conservator of Forest on 7.10.2021. It appears petitioners were not satisfied and therefore, they have also submitted report as regards the existence of number of trees which are at variance. Before adverting to the aforesaid contention related to the counting of number of trees, it is expedient to reiterate the factual background of the case. 4. The respondent/State of M.P. in order to raise infrastructure for housing its employees at the existing site at Thatipur where old quarters existed for employees but with the passage of time became inhabitable and in dilapidated condition have decided to reconstruct new quarters. 5. Earlier a scheme in that behalf was formulated in the year 2005. The scheme was under challenge before this Court on identical set of facts and grounds primarily taking exception to cutting of trees causing ecological and environmental imbalance. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition on 20.8.2009 had passed the following order :- “This petition is filed by the petitioner in public interest litigation stating that the respondents have issued a scheme namely ‘Thatipur Re-densification Scheme’. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition on 20.8.2009 had passed the following order :- “This petition is filed by the petitioner in public interest litigation stating that the respondents have issued a scheme namely ‘Thatipur Re-densification Scheme’. This petition was filed on the ground that in the area of the scheme there are nearly 1400 trees are standing and if the scheme is initiated, these 1400 trees will have to be cut which will hamper the environment in the city. This Court has permitted the respondents to proceed with the scheme but prevented only from cutting of the trees without permission of this Court. Today, an application is moved for seeking permission to cut 117 trees. The respondents have further stated that in place of 117 trees they will plant 900 trees. We grant permission to the respondents to cut 117 trees provided that they will plant 900 trees which will include Mango trees, Jamun, Sheesham, Gulmohar, Neem, Peeppal and other traditional big trees but cannot give permission to plant only the ornamental trees like Kaner, Amaltas and other small decorative trees. Hence, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to cut only 117 trees subject to the conditions that they will plant 900 trees of the qualities specified above. They will also undertake that they will maintain and nurse the said trees for five years from the date of planting of the trees and submit the report before the Registrar annually upto five years. The plantation will be done in three faces as requested by the respondents. With this direction, the petition shall stand disposed of. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. 6. Thereafter, the scheme has been republished in the year 2016. Now, the said scheme is again put to challenge in this writ petition on similar ground and similar nature of relief has been sought raising multi facet factual disputes under the pretext of danger to ecological and environmental imbalance in the area. 6. Thereafter, the scheme has been republished in the year 2016. Now, the said scheme is again put to challenge in this writ petition on similar ground and similar nature of relief has been sought raising multi facet factual disputes under the pretext of danger to ecological and environmental imbalance in the area. Looking to the previous orders passed by this Court, though this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of counsel for the respondents to dismiss this writ petition applying the principles of resjudicata but regard being heard to the facts brought on record, now it is the right stage to dispose of this writ petition as requisite facts are on record. 7. True it is that environmental and ecological balance is required to be maintained with preservation of green belt for qualitative human life nevertheless the development process cannot altogether be stalled. Instead the balance has to be struck for maintenance of environmental and ecological balance with that of sustained development. The growth and development of public oriented projects are also of equal importance for the progress and advancement of the country and, therefore, the need thereof cannot be undermined under the pretext of self conceived threat of environmental and ecological imbalance. 8. Turning to the facts in hand there is a need for re5 construction/restructure of quarters for housing State Government employees at the existing place where old structure stood for decades. Such project cannot be stalled for all times to come but with due care ensuring environmental and ecological balance. 9. Shri Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the respondents referring to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit and the report submitted by the Conservator of Forest in compliance of the Court order dated 26.8.2021 submits that total number of trees at the site are 1078, out of which 79 trees shall be cut and 329 trees shall be transplanted. In addition thereto about 500 more trees shall be planted in the same vicinity. Besides 10 times of 79 cut trees and that of 329 transplanted trees shall be planted through a Forest agency and order has been issued. The major part of the cost has been transferred to the Forest department for the said purpose. Learned counsel also submits that the aforesaid commitment of the department shall be fulfilled without exception. 10. Besides 10 times of 79 cut trees and that of 329 transplanted trees shall be planted through a Forest agency and order has been issued. The major part of the cost has been transferred to the Forest department for the said purpose. Learned counsel also submits that the aforesaid commitment of the department shall be fulfilled without exception. 10. Per contra, Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Forest department, there are 3500 trees. However, that figure is also not correct, as petitioner himself has counted and in addition thereto there are 1400 more trees. There are as such about 4900 trees. At this stage, Shri Raghuwanshi, on instructions submits that as a matter of fact the aforesaid number of trees as indicated in the report of the Forest department are in the area of 30 hectares whereas, construction is being carried out only in 13 hectares. The Forest Department report also confirms that there are only 1672 trees on 13 hectares of land in question. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner related to number of trees on 13 hectares of land are misplaced. 11. Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondents No.1, 2 and 3 not only adopts the submissions advanced by Shri Raghuwanshi but also has come forward with the statements on instructions that the concerned departments shall ensure that the green belt of the area even after construction of quarters is maintained with no exception ensuring the ecological and environmental balance of the area. Besides, trees standing on area beyond the area of 13 hectares but within 30 hectares shall be well maintained ensuring their sustained growth. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the statements of learned Additional Advocate Generals Shri MPS Raghuwanshi and Shri Ankur Mody, no useful purpose shall be served to keep this writ petition pending and therefore are disposed of with following directions:- (1) The construction activity shall be carried out only in an area of 13 hectares already demarcated where old Govt. accommodations are in existence. (2) The respondents No.1 to 5 shall ensure plantation of 10 times of 79 trees to be cut and also ten times of of 329 trees to be transplanted on the area of the Municipal Corporation having close proximity in the area of construction. accommodations are in existence. (2) The respondents No.1 to 5 shall ensure plantation of 10 times of 79 trees to be cut and also ten times of of 329 trees to be transplanted on the area of the Municipal Corporation having close proximity in the area of construction. The 329 transplanted trees shall be duly taken care of with no exception. In addition thereto 500 more trees shall also be planted in that area of 13 hectares. (3) It shall be the responsibility of the Forest Department and the Housing Board to ensure that there is a sustained growth of each and every plant either in existence in the area of 30 hectares or new plants implanted in the vicinity of aforesaid 13 hectares of land. (4) Any lapse or dereliction on the part of the respondents No. 1 to 5 shall invite serious consequences and possibility of coercive action against erring officials is not ruled out, much less penal action, (5) The respondents No.4 and 5 shall ensure requisite permissions from the concerned departments before initiating the construction activity. (6) The respondents No. 4 and 5 shall also ensure minimum pollution during the construction activity in the area and take all measures to avoid pollution, sound and air both. (7) The construction activity must be completed in a time bound schedule and the progress report in that behalf shall be submitted in the office of the Principal Registrar, High Court of M.P., Bench Gwalior quarterly. 13. Either party is at liberty to approach this Court in the event any further direction or clarification is required in the order passed today. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands disposed of.