Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 310
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
HON’BLE MR. B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JM, HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EM
Sri Debasis Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
Original Application No.231/2024/EZ
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Vikram Ojha, Adv, a/w Ms. Susama Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. for R-1,4,6,8 & 11, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Adv. for R-3 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Ayush Kumar Dadhich, Adv. for R-5 (in Virtual Mode), Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv. for R-7 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Phiroze Edulje, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Sandipan Das, Adv. for R-9, Ms. Sonal Sinha, Adv. a/w Ms. Shabnam Farooqui, Adv. for R-10
The Tribunal upheld that all tree felling was conducted with necessary permissions under applicable environmental laws, requiring compensatory tree planting.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Trees (Protection and Conservation in Non-Forest Areas) Act, 2006 - Tree felling permissions - Applicant alleged illegal felling of trees without proper permissions on property in Howrah - Respondents claimed compliance with environmental norms including issuance of clearance and plantation plans for trees - Tribunal found no violation of environmental standards, allowing felling with mandatory planting of 1203 trees against 220 felled - Dismissal of application notable for comprehensive examination of permissions accorded (Paras 30-33).
(B) Environmental compliance - Clearances for development underwent thorough scrutiny with acknowledgment of requisite authority's role in ensuring tree protection - Tribunal delineated roles of involved authorities and documentation processes, emphasizing lawful procedures adhered to for both felling and planting initiatives (Paras 31-32).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. focusing on the environmental implications of tree felling and the necessity of lawful permissions. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 20 , 21) |
| 2. addressing claims of illegal activity and subsequent findings corroborating permitted actions. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. highlighting the observance of legal procedures to safeguard environmental integrity. (Para 8 , 19 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. establishing that the tribunal found compliance with mandated tree protection laws. (Para 32) |
| 5. final dismissal of the application reaffirms adherence to environmental regulations. (Para 33 , 34) |
ORDER
1. Mr. Vikram Ojha assisted by Ms. Susama Roy, learned Counsel is present on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Ms. Sonal Sinha assisted by Ms. Shabnam Farooqui, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.10, M/s PS Group Realty Pvt. Ltd. states that counter affidavit has been filed. Office of the Tribunal informs that the same has been put to defect as the requisite fees have not been deposited.
3. Let the requisite fees be deposited within the course of the day.
4. Ms. Sonal Sinha, learned Counsel states that in spite of efforts being made by her to deposit the requisite fees, she has been informed by the office of the Tribunal that the Portal is not functional.
5. We therefore accept the hard copy of the affidavit dated 25.03.2025 on record.
6. Ms. Amrita Pandey, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Respondent No.7, Howrah Municipal Corporation states that she has instructions that Howrah Municipal Corporation will adopt the Joint Committee Report and therefore separate affidavit is not required.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(The final order of this case shall be uploaded in the NGT Website by separate sheets of paper)
ORDER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant alleging large scale illegal felling of trees at the property situated at premises No.1, Acharya Tulsi Marg, Police Station – Golabari, District – Howrah (also known as property situated at H8QV + WHP, Salt Golah, beside river Hooghly within the jurisdiction of Golabari Police Station, District – Howrah – 711106).
2. It is stated that the Respondent No.9, Rail Land Development Authority (‘RLDA’ for short) appointed a Developer firm, the Respondent No.10, M/s PS Group Realty Pvt. Ltd. and it is alleged that the Respondent No.10 is engaged in the illegal felling of trees within the said property.
3. It is stated that the Applicant had sought certain information under RTI Act 2005 which was responded by the Divisional Forest Officer, Howrah vide letter dated 15.07.2024 stating that there are only 75 trees present in the property even though the RLDA, the Respondent No.9 had through its application dated 20.03.2024 sought permission for cutting trees mentioning therein that there were nearly 235 trees present in the property. The Divisional Forest Officer, Howrah in his subsequent reply dated 15.07.2024 had stated that no permission had been granted to the Respondent No.9 for cutting and felling of trees in the property in question.
4. It is stated that subsequently the Divisional Forest Officer, Howrah on 29.04.2024 had given clearance to the Respondent No.9, Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) without obtaining any concurrence from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and without conducting any field enquiry.
5. The Applicant emphasized that the trees at the said property have been illegally cut and felled without any proper clearance or permission and also without holding any proper inquiry of the said property and upon the objection by the Applicant in form of RTI through its Advocate, the Respondent and the authorities have tried their best to cover up their misdeeds and cover up the lapses. It is further alleged that more than 1000 trees have been cut and felled at the said property without having any permission from the concerned authorities and damages to the such number of trees cannot be overlooke
