Court emphasized that tree felling may occur if transplantation is feasible, reiterating environmental safeguards necessity while permitting DDA's project.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Wazri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned ASC for the respondent. At joint request, the petition is taken up for disposal.

2. By application under s.9 of the Delhi (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1994, the petitioner DDA had sought permission to cut some trees (693) for a public project i.e., Construction of Storm Water Drain at Sector-8, Dwarka, to prevent upstream water-logging especially during the monsoon season, in and around Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. The proposed remedial measure includes widening of the northern and southern stretch of the drain upto Najafgarh. The project site was inspected by the Tree Officer, he held enquiries and after considering the matter, the requisite permission was granted. By notification dated 17.05.2022, published in Delhi Gazette-Extraordinary, an area of approximately 4.33 hectare was exempted from provisions of s.9(3) of the Act. In effect, 637 trees were recommended for transplantation and 56 trees (keekar) were permitted to be cut. Compensatory plantation of 6930 trees (i.e. ten times of the number of trees which would be effected by the proposed project) was directed and an amount of Rs.3,95,01,000/- towards administrative expenses and contingency charges was to be deposited by DDA. The tree varieties which could be planted were Neem, Amaltas, Peepal, Pilkhan, Gular, Bargad and Arjun along with other native species, at the locations identified and mentioned/detailed in the said notification. The DDA promptly deposited the aforesaid amount and communicated the same to the Tree Officer.

3. However, by a letter dated 29.06.2022, the respondent - while acknowledging the "in-principal approval" of the transplantation/cutting of trees and of the deposit of the monies, informed the DDA that permission of felling of trees had been restricted on account of order dated 28.04.2022 passed by this Court in Neeraj Sharma vs Vinay Sheel Saxena & Ors., CONT.CAS(C) No. 851/2021. The relevant portion of the said order inter alia reads as under:

"...4. It will be logical and prudent to transplant fully grown trees instead of cutting them down. Let the department of Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) file an affidavit detailing:

i) the number of permitted trees to be cut down in the last three years, month-wise and zone-wise;

ii) how many trees were transplanted, if any,

iii) how many compensatory afforestation have been completed and the status of each compensatory afforestation with photographs.

...

8. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the Tree Officer(s) give due consideration to transplantation of each tree which is sought to be cut, before granting any further permission for cutting of trees. This would entail inspection of the trees which are sought. The reason for grant or denial of permission would have to be spelt out in the order of the Tree Officer along with photographs of each tree...."

4. The import of the said order required that the denial or permission of cutting of a tree would be preceded by inspection of the tree and consideration whether it could be transplanted. The Tree Officer had visited the DDA's project site, carried out inspection, considered the matter and found that 637 trees could be transplanted while 56 trees could be cut - the latter being belonging to the vilayti keekar species. The corollary compensatory plantation and deposit of monies etc. was accordingly permitted by the aforesaid notification.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impug