HC refuses to grant interim stay on felling in DLF project

Just about a fortnight after the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu notice of the 'Tribune' report alleging felling of 2,000 trees across 40 acres, reportedly to make way for a real estate project, a Division Bench today did not grant stay in the matter. “There is no question of any stay. We will take it up next week,” the court asserted.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said it was prima facie clear on record that DLF had “legitimate” permission. “Now, if you insist, I can reject your interim prayer,” the Chief Justice said.

The Bench, at the same time, directed DLF to place before the court the licence granted for developing the project. “After hearing the counsel for the parties... this court is of the considered view that the relevant licence granted in the favour of respondent-DLF by Haryana Town and Country Planning sometime in 1995-96 is required to be produced. Therefore, DLF is directed to produce the licences for the area in question in regard to which the permission for felling of trees has been granted,” it said.

The Bench said the forest department had given respondent-DLF permissions. “Now, either you challenge those permissions, which appear to be prime facie lawful… If you get a favourable order from the higher court, well and good, otherwise (you have to see) the next remedy against permission to fell trees. There must be an appeal or something.”

A counsel appearing for one of the applicants seeking intervention submitted earlier during the course of hearing that a “designated place” on the government land in the area earmarked for a school had been converted into a stockyard for the builder for keeping construction material.

Seeking ad-interim stay, retired professor-cum-advocate Amita Singh claimed 40,000 trees had been removed. “They have already cleared off 50 acres and now hardly 40 acres is left. You need to give an ad-interim stay. Kindly appoint an amicus and a local commissioner so that we proceed little more legitimately. It's a fight between a David and a Goliath. You have to take consideration to the fact that they are very powerful people and in nexus they are more powerful”.

Another applicant Lt Col Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi also raised certain issues while seeking appointment of an amicus curiae.

In its reply, the forest department said the permission granted was conditional and not absolute. “Permission has been granted for felling of 2,788 trees, of which 1,623 are of 'prosopis juliflora' or kikar trees. Further, the concerned applicant (DLF) has been asked to transplant 79 trees after taking into consideration their species, age, other factors, which primarily includes peepal and 'bargad’ trees,” the report added.

Referring to “commensurate afforestation”, it said the applicant had been directed to plant 10 times the number of trees to be felled.

Before parting with the case, Chief Justice Nagu asked both the interveners to file relevant documents, while asserting: “The deeper you go into this, you run the risk of costs if ultimately your contentions are found to be untrue”. The case will now come up on July 10.