Pruning Can Only Be Done According To Sec. 8&9 of Act of 1994 | Delhi High Court Set Aside Guidelines For Pruning Of Trees

Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently disposed of the writ petition challenging the order passed by NGT and set aside the Guidelines dt. 1.10.2019 permitting regular pruning of branches of trees with girth upto 15.7 cm without specific prior permission of the Tree Officer and further held that the only permission that can be granted for pruning, etc. is under section 9 of the Delhi Preservation of the Trees Act, 1994.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that impugned order permitting pruning of trees, on the basis of the Guidelines is erroneous because such pruning is permitted without prior approval of and without even a site inspection or assessment of the tree(s) concerned by the relevant authority namely, the Tree Officer/Deputy Conservator of Forests („DCF‟). The Guidelines and the impugned order permit private parties/entities to prune trees even on land owned by the government (i.e. the MCD, DDA and PWD).

He referred to the judgment dated 16.03.2017 passed by the NGT (Western Zone) Bench, Pune in Mr. Pradeep Indulkar vs. Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane and Ors. in Application No. 157/2016 which has analysed a similar provision of law, regarding pruning of trees, under The Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation Of Trees Act, 1975.

HON’BLE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri observed that the aforesaid judgment also held the Municipal Corporation, Thane and the Tree Officer liable to pay environmental compensation and directed that some costs be paid.

Hon’ble court further held that “The court agrees with the petitioner‟s contention that the methodology and rationale of the order of the NGT in Mr Pradeep Indulkar v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane should be applied in the present case as well and NGT directions nos. 3 and 4, as upheld by the Supreme Court be followed and adopted for Delhi as well. GNCTD should evolve a fair procedure to deal with the proposal for felling of trees, including their trimming and pruning.”

Thereafter, Hon’ble Court analyzed the section 8 and section 9 of the aforesaid act and observed that “the responsibility of protecting and nurturing the solitary tree is far greater upon the Tree Officer and the authorities concerned. A tree is a living being. It must be given, at least a “last look” and accorded a final inspection before a decision is taken to permit its felling or sanctioning extensive amputation of its live branches”

Further, in this regard the Hon’ble court also quoted the order dated 28.04.2022 in Cont.Cas(C) 851/2021, relevant portion of the same are quoted below:-

“The statutory duty cast upon the Tree Officer necessarily requires assessment of the necessity to cut a tree for the project for which the permission is sought. A site visit would be prudent. The shortage of Tree-Officers, necessary support staff, cannot be an excuse for granting permission for cutting down trees in the city. The adverse environmental impact of such denudation is all too well-known. Compensatory afforestation if at all carried out, on the fringes of the city, far-removed from the congested areas of human habitation, where the sole decades-old-tree once stood as a carbon-sump-cum-fresh oxygen generator-cum-shade provider-cum-visual respite from the ever increasing concretization; the geographically distant and nascent compensatory plantation can hardly be of any respite or actual compensation. In any case, it will take decades for the compensatory forests to be of any reckonable benefit. In this capital city with its everbourgeoning populating, the cacophony of voices and rampant commercialization of every other street – robbing the residents of the familiar ambience of their residential neighbourhood, the ever-increasing motor- vehicular traffic, the choking air-pollution and the evercreeping concretization, trees hold out as welcome and assuring living entities of hope, sanity, environmental redemption and even companionship. The more solitary the tree, the greater its significance. Therefore, the responsibility of protecting and nurturing the solitary tree is far greater upon the Tree Officer and the authorities concerned.”

Further, it was observed in Para 11 that :-

“Since section 9(2) of the Act mandates upon the Tree Officer to inspect the tree and conduct an enquiry as may be requisite, a visit to the site is imperative for assessing the situation comprehensively. In this regard, the court has observed on 10.05.2023 as under:

“3.With each redevelopment of a house or building, abutting city streets, if applications are moved by the land-owning agency such as the PWD, DDA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Cantonment Board, etc. for cutting of trees in front of private houses, in order to facilitate construction of new building/houses, and permission to cut the trees is granted simply on the averment that the trees were coming in the way of reconstruction, then sooner or later the city will be bereft of tree-lined avenues and a large part of its green cover. In a way this would be a creeping legalised genocide of trees and Delhi would soon resemble nothing but a mass of concrete. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the aforesaid guidelines are ex facie incongruent with the provisions of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. In case there is an exigency for cutting down trees for large public projects or if it is absolutely necessary to cut down trees on a private entity‟s application, it will require the Tree Officer to personally inspect the site, assess the situation, apply his mind and if required, permit the cutting of a tree but only after having first exhausted all possibility of saving the tree and ensuring its transplantation, along with compensatory afforestation”

Hon’ble court set aside the guidelines after finding it as arbitrary and non-est and lastly observed that “no pruning of trees will be permitted in Delhi except in accordance with the DPT Act. It will be open to the respondents to frame guidelines and/or rules as may be requisite”

Case Title:-  PROF DR SANJEEV BAGAI & ORS. Vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST) & ORS.

Case no. :- W.P.(C) 2317/2023 & CM APPL. 8779/2023

Order date :- 29.05.2023