NGT mandates environmental compensation beyond compounding fines for illegal tree felling's ecological damage; directs preventive mechanisms like surveillance, expert committees, zoning by carrying capacity, and priority criminal probes for environmental offences.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14 and 15 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 32/33 - Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 (applicable in concerned state) - Sections 4, 10, 15 - Suo moto jurisdiction exercised on letter petition alleging large-scale unauthorized cutting of trees including endangered species in forest area adjacent to city, causing damage to forest and lake catchment - Joint Committee constituted to verify facts found instances of illegal felling at multiple sites; cases registered, penalties recovered via compounding but no environmental compensation levied - Tribunal holds UKPCB failed statutory duty by not imposing environmental compensation for ecological damage; directs development of guidelines for same - Directions issued for preventive measures including technology/surveillance, quick response teams, grievance cells, stricter penalties, geo-tagging, and zoning based on carrying capacity - State to ensure priority investigation of environmental offences. (Paras 1-4, 6, 23-27, 31-35)

(B) Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 - Rule 20 - Storm water drains and lake pollution - No violations found as water quality meets prescribed parameters (Category B); sewerage/STP maintenance compliant - No further directions required. (Paras 29, 16-22)

(C) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Outside NGT jurisdiction as not in Schedule I of NGT Act - No directions on implementation. (Para 30)

Facts of the case:
Suo moto original application registered on letter petition complaining of unauthorized tree felling near city affecting forest and lake recharge. Joint Committee verified specific illegal cuttings (08, 07 girdled, 09, 11 trees at various sites); actions taken included case registrations under forest laws/municipal bye-laws, compounding fines (₹1 lakh, ₹50,000 etc.), permissions for some fellings. Amicus curiae reported broader ecological threats including massive felling, illegal constructions, sewage discharge, waste dumping, flawed tree committees. Responses confirmed penalties recovered but no ecological cost; water quality compliant.

Findings of Court:
Illegal tree felling established at sites; compounding done but environmental compensation absent; preventive mechanisms mandated; city zoning by carrying capacity, lake rehabilitation, priority probes for environmental crimes ordered.

Issues: Whether illegal tree felling occurred and remedial/punitive actions adequate; compliance with pollution/waste laws; jurisdiction over wildlife matters; need for systemic safeguards against future violations.

Ratio Decidendi: NGT exercises suo moto jurisdiction for substantial environmental questions; compounding fines insufficient without environmental compensation for ecological loss; authorities must evolve punitive methodologies, surveillance, expert committees; zoning/carrying capacity essential for fragile ecology; environmental offences demand priority criminal investigation.

Result: Original application disposed of with directions to state authorities for implementation of preventive measures, zoning, lake rehab, priority probes; compliance reports by 15.12.2024.

Table of Content
1. suo motu jurisdiction invoked for environmental violation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. joint committee verifies tree felling incidents (Para 5)
3. responses confirm actions and compounding (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19)
4. amicus curiae highlights ecological threats (Para 11 , 18)
5. water quality compliance established (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25)
6. deficiencies in environmental compensation noted (Para 23 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. wildlife act outside ngt jurisdiction (Para 29 , 30)
8. zoning and lake rehabilitation directed (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. priority investigation of environmental crimes ordered (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

ORDER

1. This original application was registered in exercise of suo moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Noida Versus Ankita Sinha and Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 401, under sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act 2010’).

2. A letter petition was received by Tribunal on 26.04.2022 from Mr. Vivek Verma, son of Late Shri Madan Mohan Lal Verma, resident of H.No. 191, Bada Bazaar Mallital, Nainital, State of Uttarakhand.

3. Complainant has said that there was large-scale unauthorized cutting of trees in forest area adjacent to Nainital City in the last few years. Some of the trees cut, belonged to endangered species. Unauthorized and illegal felling of trees caused damage to forest area and also adversely affected recharging of Naini Lake from forest area, leading to danger of loss of catchment area of Naini Lake due to destruction of forest.

4. Tribunal being prima facie satisfied that a substantial question relating to environment has arisen out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act 2010’) proceeded with the matter but found it appropriate to first obtain a factual report after verification of ground level facts and for that purpose constituted a Joint Committee comprising representatives of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), Government of Uttarakhand; Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘UKPCB’) and Divisional Commissioner, Kumaon Division. The said Committee was required to submit Report within two months.

5. Pursuant to above order, Joint Committee submitted Report through Regional Officer, UKPCB vide email dated 31.10.2022. Report of the Joint Committee shows that Member of Committee visited the site on 23.09.2022 and found cutting of 08 trees near Aroma Hotel Nainital in respect whereto offence under sections 42/43 of Indian Forest Act 1927 was registered vide Case Number 04/NP 2022-23 dated 13.04.2022. It is also said that the land where trees were standing, was ‘Nazul’, hence Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1988 was applicable. Forest area was transferred by Nagar Palika, Nainital which was within its jurisdiction to Forest Department in 1976 pursuant to Government order dated 29.05.1976. Further 07 trees were found damaged by attempting to dry by human efforts and in respect whereto vide order dated 02.04.2022, ₹ 1 Lakh was recovered as penalty. Information of girdling of trees was communicated by Divisional Forest Officer, Nainital, Forest Division, Nainital to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF), Dehradun vide letter dated 04.04.2022. No unauthorized felling of trees was found in the area of Tiffin Top, Land's End and Kilbury Road. In Sukha Tal Car Parking area, 17 trees were cut for developing area as lake recharging Zone and Tourist place at Snowden Compound. 09 trees were found illegally cut, and in respect thereto, a criminal case was registered as Case No. 05/9-P dated 20.04.2022 under Municipal Bye-laws. Some trees cut and left behind were found near Holy Angels School, and in respect thereof, ₹5,000 was recovered towards compounding charges. For maintenance of existing trees in area and greenery, suggestio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3825

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert MemberVivek Verma – AppellantVersusState of Uttarakhand – RespondentOriginal Application No.518/2022

NGT mandates environmental compensation beyond compounding fines for illegal tree felling's ecological damage; directs preventive mechanisms like surveillance, expert committees, zoning by carrying capacity, and priority criminal probes for environmental offences.

Cases Referred (1)

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Vivek Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Original Application No.518/2022