High Court orders immediate halt to tree felling across Punjab, cites ‘blatant violation’ of green policy
Counsel Jatin Bansal contended that the forest and green cover in the state was critically low
Acting on a bunch of petitions filed in public interest, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Wednesday directed that trees would not be axed across Punjab. The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry also asked the state counsel to forthwith inform authorities concerned to halt the tree felling process.
In one of the petitions, Mohali resident Praneet Kaur challenged the large-scale, imminent and ongoing felling and uprooting of mature trees on public non-forest land in the area by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) for infrastructure projects.
Appearing before the Bench, counsel Jatin Bansal contended that the action was in blatant violation of the Tree Preservation Policy for Non-Forest Government and Public Lands, 2024, and settled principles of environmental law.
Bansal contended that the forest and green cover in the state was critically low. GMADA’s own stand was that alternative land was unavailable for compensatory plantation. Yet, the authority proceeded with predetermined directions for removal of 251 trees without conducting prior environmental appraisal, scientific tree census, biodiversity assessment, or identification of plantation sites.
He added that the PIL was raising grave issues concerning the indiscriminate and unlawful felling of mature and heritage trees for the proposed construction of three dumbbell-shaped roundabouts on the Airport road at and around Gurdwara Singh Shaheedan, Sohana, the junction connecting Sectors 68, 69, 78 and 79, and the junction linking Sectors 68, 67, 79 and 80, within Mohali. “It was in the name of development, in patent violation of constitutional mandates, statutory policies, and settled principles of environmental jurisprudence”.
The Bench was also told that the state notified the policy, mandating avoidance, minimisation, and offsetting of tree felling, special protection to heritage species, prior tree census, environmental appraisal, and identification of compensatory plantation land before any permission was granted. Yet, GMADA acted arbitrarily and illegally by permitting and commencing the felling and uprooting of the tress
Bansal referred to tender documents and news-reports before contending that the official data from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), showed Punjab’s forest cover stood at only 3.67 per cent of its geographical area
Punjab Deputy Advocate-General Salil Sabhlok raised objections during the course of hearing to the maintainability of the PILs. Among other things, he contended that specific statutory permissions had not been challenged and that news reports were being relied upon. The matter will now come up for further hearing in January after the winter vacation.
