[2026:RJ-JP:564-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14962/2020 Vimla Devi Wife Of Shri Sardar Meena, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 107, Sivram Colony, Jagatpura Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Panchayat Rajand Rural Development Secretariat, Jaipur

4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

5. The District Collector Dausa, Rajasthan

6. The Tehsildar Sikrai, District Dausa Rajasthan

7. The Gram Panchayat Patan, Through Village Development Officer, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj) Sikrai Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. R.K. Sharma with Mr. Namonarayan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shikha Sharma on behalf of Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

08/01/2026

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) issued orders for cutting of trees without authority merely for the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan.

2. It is informed by the counsel appearing for the respondents that in lieu of cutting of the trees for the purpose of construction of the Panchayat Bhawan, separate land was earmarked and around 500 tress have been sown. However, learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the contention and submits that the trees sown are much less in number.

3. While it may be necessary for public purpose to construct buildings, at the same time, grown trees are also required to be protected to maintain the Eco-system and the environment. In fact, the plan for construction of buildings ought to be made in a manner so that the existing trees are not disturbed. The mass-scale felling of trees by the respondents is not approved by this Court. Moreover, the concerned SDM has not taken any permission from any authority for cutting of the trees. Subsequent action of sowing trees at another place would not be a sufficient ground to excuse the mass-scale felling of trees.

4. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Bindu Kapurea Versus Subhashish Panda and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1252 made the following observations on the environmental impact of tree felling:

“25. In spite of that, this Court remains equally cognizant of the clamant ecological concerns arising from the refractory conduct of the Respondents. Undeniably, the reckless decimation of a substantial portion of the Delhi Ridge, carried out without any discernible effort to mitigate environmental harm, has resulted in an alarming loss of biodiversity. It must be recognised that a forested area is not solely a collection of trees—it is a delicate and intricate ecosystem comprising of mammals, migratory birds, amphibians, critters and countless other life forms that together inexplicably contribute to the region’s ecological balance. As has already been reiterated, the Delhi Ridge functions as the lungs of the city. In light of this, there is no gainsaying that urgent and sustained measures must be taken not only to preserve it but also to restore and enhance its ecological vitality.”

5. It is noticed that while permission was granted to cut 17 large and medium trees and 8 small trees, more than 150 trees have been cut. An affidavit was filed by the State that they have only cut

25 trees. However, we find from the documents on record that the area was fully dense with forest trees, which have been illegally cut down. Appropriate disciplinary action ought to have been taken against the concerned officer who had cut down the trees. Even the Government Officials who were engaged in cutting the trees deserve to be punished, as it is not only the concerned officer who passes illegal orde