Disposed

Smt. Aruna Ajit Ghaisas v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011PIL/54/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL challenging tree felling permissions, the court accepted the developer's assurance that 11 trees would be transplanted and scientifically relocated on the plot before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Municipal Corporation directed to ensure 11 trees are transplanted and relocated on the plot in consultation with experts.

Smt. Aruna Ajit Ghaisas Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

PIL-12 of 2011.sxw

ASN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORD INARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.12 OF 2011

¶6

Smt.Aruna Ajit Ghaisas. Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶8

..Petitioner.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Pradeep Havnuer i/by D. Mishra for the Petitioner. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar for the B.M.C.

¶11

Mr. Milind More, A.G.P. for Respondent State.

¶12

Mr. Jamshed Mistry with Ram Singh for Respondent No.6.

¶13

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Sr. Adsvocate i/by Dastur Dadhich & Kalambi for Respondent No.8.

¶14

Mr. D.D.Madon, Senior Adv. i/by F.F.& Associates for Resp. No.9. Mr. Jamshed Mistry with Ram Singh for Respondent No.6.

¶15

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND

¶16

SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.

¶17

DATE : 29 NOVEMBER 2011

¶18

PC:

¶19

In this petition purporting to be Public Interest Litigation the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶20

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Municipal Commissioner has no authority to preside the meeting of the Tree Authority and garden development authority while deciding application made for felling of trees by the various departments of the Municipal Corporation by issuing appropriate writ, orders and directions and dereserving the plot of

PIL-12 of 2011.sxw

ASN

land on which developed garden was present.

¶25

(b-1) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Respondent No.8 and 9 have no right to carry out construction by cutting the tree and redevelopment the garden without the final judgment is pronounced by the Hon’ble Court and Respondent No.1 and 2 should put all the facts and permission of papers in front of Hon’ble Judges and satisfy that it is done in the larger interest of public for which PIL is filed.

¶26

2 Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 8 stating that two plots bearing CTS Nos. 207 and 208 (part) of Worli Division in G/ South Ward are situated in the residential zone and were not and are not reserved as garden or for any public purpose except for road widening of the existing road and for a proposed D.P. Road and their junctions. The stand of the Corporation is that the land in question is not reserved for garden but there was unauthorized encroachment on the land in question. Hence, to prevent the encroachment company was permitted to beautify the part of the land. It is further case of the respondent that there was a chawl having 24 tenements and four other tenements (VLT) and by resolutions dated 10 September 2007 and 4 October 2007 the Improvement Committee of the Corporation accorded their approval/sanction to the redevelopment project and for the purpose of this redevelopment project the respondent developers moved the Tree Authority and by their letter dated 11 October 2-11 at Exhibit-K the Tree Officer conveyed that the request of the proposed Co-operative Society for removal of the trees coming in the work of proposed development has been considered by the Tree Authority under Section 8(3)of the

¶27

3 PIL-12 of 2011.sxw

¶28

ASN

¶29

Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act 1975. As per the said communication, the Tree Authority has granted permission for cutting of two trees bearing Serial Nos. 23 (Jamun) and 26 (Wad) i. e. Banian tree. The Tree Authority has also granted permission to transplant nine trees bearing Serial Nos. 17,21,22,24,25,27,36,37 and 28. The Tree Authority has further stipulated certain conditions while granting the above permission for planting four trees in the property within 30 days and also certain trees in the open spaces and R.G. area as per directions of the Tree Authority.

¶30

3 The grievance of the petitioner is that by cutting such trees like banian tree the Tree Authority has acted arbitrarily.

¶31

4 The learned counsel for the developer and the learned counsel for the society state that even though they have a right to cut the two trees as per the permission granted by the Tree Authority, instead of cutting trees they are taking steps to transplant the said two trees along with nine other trees on the said land. He has then shown to us the plan of the land under development and makes a statement that the two trees being Jamun and Banian trees bearing Serial Nos. 23 and 26 respectively shall be re-transplanted on the triangular western portion of the land under construction. We record and accept the statement of the learned counsel for the Developer that in all 11 trees bearing Serial Nos. 23, 26, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 36, 37 and 28 will be relocated on the same plot of land as shown above.

PIL-12 of 2011.sxw

ASN

5 The learned counsel further submitted that this exercise will be under- taken in consultation with Dr. V. K. Ogale and Mr. Jaiprakash Shah for proper and scientific transplantation of the 11 trees.

¶36

6 The Municipal Corporation shall see that all the aforesaid trees are transplanted as stated by the learned counsel for the Developer.

¶37

7 The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above statements.

¶38

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

( SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. )

Smt. Aruna Ajit Ghaisas v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aruna Ajit Ghaisas v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navanath Madhukar Bhange and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Navanath Madhukar Bhange and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammed Zafar J. Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and Ors.

Shaikh Budan Shaikh Gulab Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aagand Shesharao Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pathan Zafarali Khan Mohd. Ali Khan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Suresh Shripast Mhatre Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

Maruti Dagdu Morabale Vs 1. S.N.D.T. Womens University, through Its Registrar and Ors.

Navanath Madhukar Bhange and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M. Suresh Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sonata Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Navanath Madhukar Bhange and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asha R. Desai Vs Suhas P. Thakur and Anr.

Association for Aiding Justice Vs Union of India and Ors.

Laxman K. Agarwal Vs Bridget Southo and Anr.