Afforestation claim questioned in HC; court brings in amicus for clarity

Just about five months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court asked the state functionaries to supervise compliance with the condition of planting 10 times the trees cut within close proximity of a DLF project in Gurugram, allegations of “planting the tree by cutting another forest” triggered sharp exchanges before the Bench. The court, as of now, has appointed senior advocate GK Mann as amicus curiae to assist in the matter, and posted the case for further hearing in January.

Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi – an applicant in person – submitted: “They have planted the trees by cutting another forest, 160 acres. We objected, I filed a criminal case, and it is going on”. He also requested the Bench to appoint an amicus curiae or a friend of the court in the matter.

Appearing for the DLF, senior advocate RS Rai, on the other hand, told the Bench that the afforestation condition had been complied with. “If compliance is not made, I am guilty and I should be taken to task.

I am very category that I have completed compliance on 1st of September. I have written to them. They have come in, inspected everything. They have further imposed another condition on me, that I will maintain all of them for the next five years. I have agreed to that. Now, here is, therefore, I'm saying, my lord's in parade, say, if the condition is not implemented, please find revival. I am on statement to say, I have absolutely complied with it. I have further undertaken that I will maintain it for the next five years so that those plants don't die”

Referring to the judgment, Rai added that “the state of Haryana as well as the interveners were at liberty to revisit this court by filing an application for revival of the public interest litigation” in case of non-compliance. “I have absolutely complied with it,” he added.

The high court had initially taken suo motu notice of a ‘The Tribune’ news report on the alleged felling of nearly 2,000 trees for a real estate project, but the Bench refused to further proceed with the matter after being told that none of the trees permitted to be cut were located in the Aravalli Hills.

The Bench observed that no khasra number, in respect of which respondent-DLF had been granted permission to fell trees, fell within the Aravalli region. “In the absence of any material to the contrary, this court has to rely upon the statement on oath made by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gurugram, and its contents,” the Bench observed.