Table of Content
1. compliance with tree protection notifications is mandatory for the sanctioning of layout plans and felling permissions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. the high court under article 226 has the jurisdiction to investigate the root cause of a matter regardless of narrow objections. (Para 6 , 7)
3. interim judicial directions must balance environmental protection with the provision of basic amenities and the prevention of coercive action. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

On 20.05.2026, the Secretary of the MDDA and DFO, Mussoorie joined proceeding through V.C. and apprised about the number of trees on which the S.H.O. concerned was directed to visit site and submit a report. He apprised that there are twenty-two fruit bearing trees, though the Secretary to the Development Authority apprised that there were only eight trees out of which two trees have been cut down for which the DFO apprised that permission was sought to cut five trees however he has given permission to cut down only two trees.

2. Taking into consideration why the Secretary to Development Authority gave a wrong figure of trees and to examine whether before the sanction of lay out plan, the officials visited the site to find out whether there are fruit bearing trees or not and furthermore why the permission was given to cut fruit bearing trees by the DFO, both the officials were directed to place before this Court the concerned file.

3. Now in compliance thereof, E-file is placed and I have gone through with the files. The record reveals that the lay out plan was sanctioned with the following conditions:-

“If there is any tree in construction area before cutting it approval must be taken.”

This condition clearly reveals that this clause will apply if there is any constructions exist. The record further reveals that the approval was given on 25.04.2026 to cut two fruit bearing trees (Mango Trees). The record of DFO reveals that there is a Notification dated 06.09.2024, which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 21 and 23 of the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976) Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002. This Notification relates to prohibition to fell the species of tree as specified in the table. Clause 15, 16 and 17 relates to fruit tree species which includes “Aam i.e mango.” Clause -2, 3 and 4 of this Notification are relevant and are being reproduced as under:-

“2. Trees of prohibited species, shall not be felled till December 31, 2028 except under unavoidable circumstances such as the tree has dried up naturally or is drying up is causing danger to persons/property or is impediment to residential building construction or for the execution of development work approved by the Government or has attained a compatible diameter or its fruit bearing capacity has declined substantially and permission to fell such trees has been obtained in writing from the competent authority. For compatible diameter Additional Principal Conservator of Forests, Research, Training and Management may issue guidelines from time as and when required.

3. Details of the trees to be felled and details of the place for the compensatory plants to be planted (in lieu of the trees that may be felled) shall be mentioned in the application form while applying for the felling permission from the competent authority and subsequently recorded online.

4. The tree owner shall plant and maintain 02 trees in place of each felled tree and in unavoidable circumstances of non-planting the trees, the amount for planting 02 trees and maintaining them for 5 years, as determined by the competent authority, will be deposited by the tree owner in favour of the Forest Department as per Section-5 and 7 of the said Act. The Forest Department will use this amount for the purpose of afforestation. This will also help in conserving such species and expanding the tree cover too.”

4. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document