2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4327

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Hardeep Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Ramash Chand Aarya – Respondent
Original Application No. 147/2024 (IA No. 561/2024)

Pollution Control Boards must assess and recover environmental compensation for illegal tree felling using Polluter Pays principle and specified formula, distinct from Forest penalties, to remediate ecological damage on forest or non-forest land.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 2(a), 5; National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Schedule I; Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 10; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Sections 4, 10; Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 - Illegal felling of trees in non-forest private land - Permission granted for felling 150 trees but 176 trees found illegally felled - Penalty imposed by Forest Department for violation of tree protection laws distinct from environmental compensation for damage to environment - Pollution Control Board empowered to assess and recover environmental compensation using ‘Polluter Pays’ principle for remediation of ecological loss caused by illegal tree felling, irrespective of forest or non-forest land - Formula for compensation: Environment Compensation = (Cost Factor x Trunk area x Species Factor x Condition Factor x Location Factor) - Royalty Value - Factors rated 0.5 to 1.0 based on species altitude, tree condition, location importance - Compensation must be restorative, deterrent, preventive and punitive - UKPCB directed to compute and recover compensation after hearing stakeholders within two months; funds for restoration plan by Joint Committee. (Paras 1-90)

(B) Polluter Pays Principle - Integral to environmental jurisprudence - Liability to remediate environmental damage from illegal tree felling lies with violators - Distinguished from statutory penalties for non-compliance with felling permissions - Applies to damage to air, water, land, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, soil stability, water cycles caused by deforestation - Recognized in precedents emphasizing strict liability for hazardous activities and constitutional mandate under Articles 48A, 51A(g). (Paras 38-59)

Facts of the case:
Complaint regarding illegal cutting of over 600 trees (beyond permission for 150) on private agricultural/non-agricultural land for colony development - Multiple inspections revealed initial 1101 trees reduced to 703, with 176 illegally felled - Land transferred among owners and subsequent purchasers - Forest Department imposed/recovered penalty for 88 trees; Joint Committee confirmed violations - Respondent claimed no responsibility post-sale and compensatory planting.

Findings of Court:
Illegal felling causes habitat loss, biodiversity decline, soil erosion, climate change, disrupted water cycles, air deterioration - Tree felling regulated strictly; compensatory afforestation mandatory - Environmental compensation separate from penalties - Directed computation using specified formula and utilization for restoration.

Issues: Distinction between statutory penalties for unauthorized felling and environmental compensation for ecological damage; authority of Pollution Control Board to levy compensation under Polluter Pays; methodology for assessing tree felling damage; responsibility of land owners/sellers/purchasers.

Ratio Decidendi: Damage to environment from illegal tree felling warrants environmental compensation via Polluter Pays, assessed by Pollution Control Board using multi-factor formula, distinct from Forest penalties - Ensures restoration, deterrence; applicable uniformly to forest/non-forest areas - Opportunity of hearing mandatory before recovery.

Result: Original Application disposed with directions to Pollution Control Board for compensation assessment/recovery by 15.02.2025 and restoration plan execution.

Table of Content
1. illegal tree felling exceeds permitted limits (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
2. permission process and inspections for tree cutting (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. official reports confirm illegal tree felling (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 31)
4. respondent denies responsibility via land transfers (Para 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. distinction between penalty and environmental compensation (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. polluter pays principle in environmental jurisprudence (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
7. environmental damage from illegal tree felling (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
8. uppt act regulates non-forest tree felling (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
9. ukpcb to assess and recover environmental compensation (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90)

ORDER

1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) was registered on a complaint made by Hardeep Sharma, Rashtriya Maha Sachiv, Jai Maa Bharti, Samajik, Hanuman Nagar, Fasiyapur, Dariyal Road, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, complaining about illegal cutting of about 1100 green trees for construction of colony, and carving out plots at Kashipur. Though permission was obtained for cutting of only 150 trees but much more have been removed. Complainant has said that in 150 bigha land at villages Chandpur, Pratappur, Kashipur of District Udham Singh Nagar, an illegal colony is being developed for plotting wherein there are about 1100 green trees. Nakul Kumar Gupta, Sudhir Kumar Gupta and Manish Kumar Gupta, R/o Chandpur, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar had obtained permission for felling of 150 trees but presently have already cut more than 600 trees. Forest Department, however, has closed matter by charging penalty only against 88 illegally removed trees. On land in question, boundary wall and roads are being constructed. Inspection was made by Joint Committee constituted by Chief Horticulture Officer vide order dated 12.08.2022 and in its inspection report dated 19.12.2022, it stated that trees should not be allowed to be fallen. Permission for felling of 150 trees was given but as per inspection report dated 24.05.2023, 579 trees have been fallen and penalty should be recovered for 648 trees but no appropriate action has been taken.

2. Tribunal looked into the complaint on 15.02.2024 and after being prima facie satisfied that a substantial question relating to environment has arisen out of implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) particularly, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EP Act, 1986’) and Bio Diversity Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as B D Act, 2002’), found it appropriate to implead State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand; Divisional Forest Officer, Udham Singh Nagar; Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board through Member Secretary; and District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar as respondents 11 to 14 in addition to respondents already impleaded as 1 to 10.

3. Notices were issued to all the respondents giving them opportunity to file their responses.

4. Tribunal also found it appropriate to obtain a factual Report for verification of facts stated in the OA and also for suggesting appropriate remedial action and thus constituted a Joint Committee comprising representatives of Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPCB’); Divisional Forest Officer, Udham Singh Nagar; Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘UKPCB’); and District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Committee was required to submit its Report within two months.

5. Pursuant to above order, Joint Committee submitted Report dated 21.05.2024 stating that on land at Khata number 00027, 00125, 00126 and 002

Click Here to Read the rest of this document