Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Forest Department to take action as per the recommendations of the CEC in a case concerning tree felling in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Manmohan, while issuing notice to one Shiv Shankar Agarwal, observed ,"In view of what is stated in Report No. 35, issue notice to Shiv Shankar Agarwal, returnable on January 24, 2025. This notice is to be forwarded to the Superintendent of Mathura. We have perused the conclusions and recommendations of the CEC. In terms of the recommendations, the Forest Department shall take action as per the provisions in clauses (b), (c), (f), and (g) of paragraph 14 of the recommendations. We direct the Forest Department to close the path referred to therein."

At the outset, Senior Advocate ADN Rao, appearing as the amicus in the case, informed the bench that 454 trees had been felled.

The court was also told that during the last hearing, it had issued a contempt notice to the owners on whose private lands these trees were felled, and that they have to respond to the issue. It was further contended that the CEC has proposed suggestions.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Manu Singhvi, appearing for the noticees, brought the court's attention to the final report of the CEC, emphasising that it had nothing to do with his clients. He explained, "Person A sold the property to B, and B transferred it to C. I am B, and C is in jail and has been named by the CEC. This is very wrong."

When Justice Oka asked, "Who will pay 1 lakh?" Senior Advocate Singhvi responded by saying, "His name is Shankar Agarwal, alias Shiv Shankar Agarwal."

Referring to the CEC's recommendations, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan pointed out that the language used in the report is loose in nature. He noted that the report uses the term "landowners," but in its earlier parts, it had used words such as original owners, erstwhile landowners etc.

In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had issued notice to Uttar Pradesh officials calling upon them to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them in a case concerning tree felling in the Taj Trapezium Zone. (TTZ)

"We are of the view that the persons mentioned in paragraph 8 are guilty of civil contempt. Hence, we issue notice to them returnable on 19th December calling upon them to show cause as to why action under contempt of court act should not be taken against them, " Justice Oka led bench said, while also adding that the report discloses a 'shocking state of affairs', recording that 454 trees were illegally felled on the 18th and 19th of September 2024.

The bench, also comprising Justice Augustine George Masih, noted that out of the 454 illegally felled trees, 420 were on private land known as Dalmia Farm, while the remaining 32 were felled on the roadside adjoining this private land, which is a protected forest.

It further observed that the illicit felling of these 454 trees was carried out by the individuals named in paragraph 8 of the said report, which is in violation of the order passed by this court in May 2015 and December 8, 2021.

Court accordingly directed the persons against whom the notice was issued to refrain from carrying out any work on Dalmia Farm or any construction, and to maintain the status quo. It asked the superintendent of police of Mathura to direct the Station House Officer (SHO) of the local police station to visit the Dalmia farm and to ensure that no felling of trees is being carried out.

During the hearing, Amicus Curiae ADN Rao brought the court's attention to photographs and suggested that the Court should pass an order prohibiting tree felling after 6:00 PM, as all the trees were felled at midnight. He also asked the court to issue contempt notices against those who are violating the order passed by the court. 

In a similar vein, ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the State, while urging the court to issue notice said, "If your lordship will issue notice, that will empower us more to get the work done." Bhati also informed the court that the state has registered cases against violators under the UP Tree Protection Act, Indian Forest Act, Wildlife Protection Act, and Environment Protection Act.

Aligning with the said view, the court accordingly issued notice and ordered that "there should be no trees fall after 6:00 p.m. till 8:00 a.m. of the next day".

On 23 November, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the Delhi Tree Authority (DTA) for its failure to conduct a tree census in the capital, as required under the Delhi Tree Preservation Act (DTPA).

Case Title: MC Mehta vs UOI