Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Kapil Tanwar - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11108 of 2021
Decided On : 06-12-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. danger posed by a leaning tree (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. roles of stakeholders in addressing tree issues (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. procedure for application to the tree officer (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final order and disposition of the petition (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)--Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to remove the subject tree adjoining to property No.WZ 825, Naraina Village, Delhi which is allegedly leaning towards petitioner's House No.WZ 826, Narina Village, Delhi.
2. It is contended that the tree is between the two properties and because a part of the wall of property of respondent No.1 has fallen down, the tree has become dangerous.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that the Municipal Corporation has no concern because the tree is on a private property and parties have to apply to the concerned Tree Officer for appropriate directions.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submits that if an appropriate application is filed the Tree Officer shall carry out proper assessment and pass appropriate orders.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he shall be making an appropriate application.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that he has no objection in case the application is filed by the petitioner and appropriate orders are passed by the Tree Officer. He assures that respondent No.5 shall cooperate with the petitioner in all manners required.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of permitting petitioner to file an appropriate application to the Tree Officer in accordance with the rules. On such an application being filed, The Tree Officer shall decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by anything stated on merits in this order.
8. The Tree Officer shall, however, not insist upon a no objection from or a joint application by respondent No. 5.
9. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Responsibility for tree management on private property lies with the property owner; municipal authorities are not liable.
Proper procedure for addressing tree removal disputes and the jurisdiction of the Tree Officer in such matters.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the acknowledgment of the threat posed by dangerous trees and the adoption of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for assessing and removing su....
Public authorities must act proactively to remove hazards on municipal property posing risks to individuals.
Jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for directing cutting and removal of trees without a basic order or alleging inaction.
The central legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of protecting trees for environmental benefits and the regulation of tree felling and disposal on Government lands.
The court recognized the resolution of a property dispute through compliance with removal requests while preserving the petitioner's right for future recourse.
The importance of ascertaining ownership and valid reasons for seeking permission to fell trees under Section 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
