TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Tree felling on 40 acres: HC to hear case today on interim relief

Felling of 2,000 trees alleged

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

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 retired professor-cum-advocate today told a Division Bench that “the whole forest would be wiped off” if axing was allowed to continue.

Advertisement

Appearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, Amita Singh contended that the felling was taking place at night and they could hear the peacocks cry. Taking a note of arguments and counter-arguments in the matter, the Bench fixed the case for further hearing on Friday on the issue of interim relief.

Advertisement

At the very onset, state counsel Ankur Mittal submitted that the land was not forest. It was not even a part of the Aravalli plantation, but was privately owned. “The Department of Forest is the main party, which has accorded the permissions for the felling of the trees…. If the court permits a week's time, I will be in a position to place on record the status report, bringing on record the geographical situation also, because the impression taken is that the land is a part of Aravallis. It is not. It is a privately owned land, permissions have been granted with conditions imposed,” he submitted.

The Bench was also told that the newspaper report said “It was the Aravallis which have been deforested. But the truth of the matter is that this was licensed way back in 1996”. The Bench, however, asserted: “Submit on an affidavit, whatever you want.”

Amita, meanwhile, pressed for an immediate stay. She said the forest would be wiped out. “This would lead us nowhere because the whole purpose of this effort would be defeated… Immediate stay should be granted, otherwise there is no need for us to make the effort. And you sitting 250 km away have in such an enlightened manner taken cognisance of this,” she added. Counsel Deepak Balyan is representing the MC, while senior advocates Randep Singh Rai and Chetan Mittal are appearing for the DLF.

Advertisement

Chief Justice Nagu had taken note of the news-item “DLF project sparks outcry in Aravallis, activists protest outside minister’s home”. The news report had referred to the claims of the residents and environment activists that the builder was “destroying the Aravallis” and had launched protests and official petitions, seeking immediate halt to the activity.

Advertisement
Tags :
#AravalliDeforestation#AravalliMountains#DLFProjectControversy#EnvironmentalProtest#RealEstateImpactEnvironmentalActivismForestConservationLandDisputepunjabharyanahighcourttreefelling
Show comments
Advertisement