sc-seeks-delhi-plan-for-illegal-tree-cutting-compensation

The Supreme Court has taken a firm stance on the illegal felling of trees in Southern Delhi's ridge forest area. On Friday, while hearing the case, a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Delhi government to provide details on how it plans to compensate for the unauthorised cutting of trees. This directive comes amid concerns about environmental preservation and adherence to legal protocols in tree management.

 

The court also instructed the Delhi government to identify the number of illegal permissions granted for tree cutting over the past five years. These records are to be submitted to the court, providing transparency and accountability regarding the permissions issued for tree felling.

 

Additionally, the court allowed government and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officers to inform the Supreme Court whether Lieutenant Governor (LG) V.K. Saxena had been made aware that he could not grant permission for tree felling without a court order. This inquiry is crucial in understanding the decision-making process behind the tree cutting.

 

The DDA was also asked to clarify whether its decision to cut the trees was based solely on the LG's permission or if it had taken an independent decision. This will help determine the extent of the LG's involvement and the procedural correctness of the actions taken by the DDA.

 

This case was brought to the Supreme Court's attention by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea and an NGO, who alleged that trees were cut despite a March 4 order from the apex court denying permission for such actions by the DDA. They claimed that the fact of tree cutting was not disclosed to the court, prompting a need for judicial intervention.

 

In May, the Supreme Court initiated a suo motu contempt of court case against DDA Vice-Chairman Subhasish Panda for violating the court's orders by allowing the felling of trees. The court's strong response reflects its commitment to upholding its directives and protecting the environment.

 

During the recent hearing, the bench expressed its disapproval of the LG's role in granting permission for tree felling without the court's prior approval. The court criticised the LG for not applying due diligence and presuming authority over tree officer powers, questioning whether he believed himself to be a court.

 

The bench further questioned whether DDA officials had informed the LG that the Supreme Court's permission was required for cutting the trees. This line of questioning aims to clarify whether proper procedures were followed and whether the LG acted within his jurisdiction.

 

The Supreme Court also issued a notice to the contractor responsible for the tree felling, asking him to disclose on whose instructions he proceeded with the action. This step ensures accountability and identifies the chain of command in the unauthorised tree cutting.

 

In June, the bench noted that the LG, as Chairman of the DDA, had approved the proposal for cutting trees and had even visited the site. This led to the initiation of contempt of court proceedings, highlighting the gravity of the situation and the need for strict adherence to court orders.

 

As the case progresses, the Supreme Court's directives aim to address the environmental impact of the unauthorised tree cutting and ensure that responsible parties are held accountable.

 

This case underscores the importance of judicial oversight in environmental matters and the need for transparent governance in urban planning and development.