Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1344
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
Sheo Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Raju Ram Vishnoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Original Application No.163/2024(CZ)|I.A.No.64/2024
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Manas Khatri,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hemant Balani, Adv., Mr.Anil Kumar Makhija, Adv., Mr. Mohit Seth, Adv., Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv., Ms. Arya Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rajat Dave, Adv.
Tree removal on non-forest land permitted under tenancy laws with compensatory afforestation for sustainable development.
Headnote:The judgment addresses tree removal permissions under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (S.84), Rajasthan Land Revenue (Control and Management of Forest Growth) Rules, 1960 (R.14, R.2, R.3), and Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (R.24H). Essential facts involve cutting 251 trees, including Khejri (State Tree), on non-forest land for a multi-logistic park under PM Gati Shakti scheme, with prior permissions from revenue authorities and High Court directions for 10x afforestation. Court finds permissions valid as land is private khatedari, not forest, and compensatory afforestation underway. Issues framed include legality of tree cutting on protected species without forest clearance and compliance with afforestation norms. Ratio decidendi emphasizes sustainable development balancing infrastructure with environmental protection, upholding permissions under S.84(2) and R.24H for bonafide project use, exempting non-forest land per R.14, and endorsing High Court's 10x afforestation mandate over standard 2x requirement. Original Application disposed with directions for 10x afforestation, plant survival, and compliance with pending High Court writ.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tree cutting permissions on state-protected species. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. project permissions and initial 2x afforestation compliance. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. high court order mandates 10x afforestation. (Para 6 , 14 , 15 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. non-forest land exempt from forest rules; tenancy permissions valid. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. application disposed enforcing 10x afforestation. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER
1. The contention of the Applicant is that the Govt. of Rajasthan has declared the Khejari as a State Tree in the year 1982 and 1983 and in order to regulate the forest growth, its supervision and control, the State Government has laid down a policy by way of rules of 1960.
2. 2. In spite of all these, the Land Acquisition Officer, Loni Jodhpur, vide order impugned as Annexure A-1, A-2 and A-3, indirectly exercised the power of the forest officials and permitted for removal of the trees which is against the environmental rules.
3. The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and a committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report, 4. In compliance of the order members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :
“The above alleged site belongs to M/s Hasti Petro Chemical & Shipping Ltd for establishment of multi-logistic park sanctioned under the PM Gati Shakti scheme.
The alleged site was inspected in the presence of Sh.Arvind Surana, CFO and Sh. Amit Jain, Terminal Manager of M/s Hasti Petro Chemical & Shipping Ltd.
During inspection, it was observed that the work of “Passenger Freight Terminal” was going on. Three parallel railway lines were found laid down.
During inspection, the representative of the industry, presented the permissions which were obtained before cutting down off the trees, which stood in the path of laying down off railway lines.
SDO, Luni vide letter dated 29.05.2024 gave the permission for cutting of 251 no of trees. Out of the 251 trees, 155 no trees were of Khejri, 55 of Rohida, 08 of Neem, 03 of Jhaal, and rest 02 of brambles and bushes
As per the available records of the Forest department , the land involved in the said project does not involve forest land, hence the permission for tree cutting has to be obtained from the concerning Sub- Divisional Officer in compliance of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
It was intimated by the industry’s representative that a similar matter is pending in the Hon’ble High Court, Jodhpur with D.B Civil Writ Petition no- 8465/2024, Khem Singh v/s State of Rajasthan.
As per the order dated 30.05.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court in the above referred D.B Civil Writ Petition no- 8465/2024, it was directed to M/s Hasti Petro Chemical & Shipping Ltd to ensure afforestation to the extent of ten times more than the permitted deforestation
As per the representative of the industry, in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, they had planted about 1846 plants till date, with geo-tagging at the places instructed by SDO, Luni and revenue authorities The industry under reference has also submitted an affidavit wherein they have assured that 1000 trees of khejri trees shall also be planted in and around the premises.
COMPLIANCE OF OTHER STATUTORY REGULATIONS
As per the available records of the State Pollution Control Board, Jodhpur, the industry under reference has obtained permission for establishment of “Railway Good Shed “under orange category
RECOMMENDATIONS
During the site visit carried out by the Joint team, work of laying down off the railway siding was going on. The committee recommends the following: -
a) It is proposed that the no of plants/ trees deforested should be afforested ten times. Also, native species should be promoted.
b) Instead of cutting of trees, process of translocation of trees may be promoted for green field projects and other activities.
5. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent with the facts that this project is for the developm
