Challenging allegations of unauthorized tree felling by public authorities in a Smart City project project at Panaji, Goa. The court noted that permissions were granted for translocation and felling, and allegations lacked substantial backing.
The written petition without order for costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PILWP-22-24.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PIL WRIT PETITION NO.22 OF 2024
PRAJAL SAKHARDANDE AND ANR. …. PETITIONERS.
Versus
STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR. .… RESPONDENTS.
Mr Hrudaynath S. Shirodkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Correction carried out as per order dated 6/5/2024 in MCA No.1147/24(F)
Mr D.J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr P. Arolkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate the Respondents No.1 to 4, 5 & 6
CORAM : M. S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ.
DATED : 23rd April 2024.
P.C.:
1. Mr Shirodkar for the Petitioner. Learned Advocate General appears along with Mr P. Arolkar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4.
2. At the very outset, the learned Advocate General makes it clear that no trees have been cut without any permissions under the Goa Preservation of Trees Act, 1984, and there is no intention to cut any trees without following the due process of law and obtaining necessary permissions.
3. Further, the learned Advocate General submitted that in the context of the Smart City project at Panaji, applications were
Page 1 of 4 23rd April 2024
PILWP-22-24.DOC
received from the user agency for the felling of the following six trees :
| Tree No. |
Species | Girth (cm) | Height (m) | Landmark |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mango | 2.10 | 9.00 | Near fire dept. |
| 2 | Rain tree A | 5.40 | 15.00 | |
| Rain Tree B | 3.05 | 4.00 | Near Zakis | |
| 3. | Mango | 3.10 | 11.00 | Near Xero. |
| 4. | Mango | 2.50 | 10.00 | |
| 5. |
Banyan tree | 13.00 | 12.00 | Near Sheetal |
| 6. | Rain tree | 5.02 | 15.00 |
4. Upon receipt of the applications, the Authorities inspected each of the six trees. Te first four trees were found within the Right of Way (RoW). However, the inspection also revealed that they were not leaning or posing any danger. Terefore, the user agency was advised to take adequate measures to save the trees. Even the user agency agreed with this suggestion, and accordingly, no permission was granted to fell the first four trees referred to above.
5. Regarding the fifth tree (Banyan tree), the inspection revealed that it was affected by the drain system, and one major trunk was leaning towards an adjoining building. Te inspection also revealed that there was no space available for the tree to grow further, as it was found congested within the RoW. Te Authorities concluded that the tree was vulnerable for all these reasons and could even be uprooted at any time. Still, considering the religious and heritage value of the tree, the user agency was apprised that translocation of this tree would be appropriate in the circumstances.
Page 2 of 4 23rd April 2024
PILWP-22-24.DOC
6. Te Joint Inspection Report placed before us records that the user agency informed the Authorities that they have machinery and labour available for translocation, and translocation was possible at Campal ground, which is also government land, was chosen for translocation. Accordingly, permissions were granted to translocate the Fifth Tree (Banyan tree) to Campal ground.
7. Te learned Advocate General states that this tree has already been translocated at the Campal ground pursuant to this permission. Mr Shirodkar made some submissions that this was not a proper translocation. However, as filed, the Petition is bereft of proper averments or suggestions for successful translocation.
8. Regarding the sixth tree (Rain tree), the inspection report revealed that it was found leaning towards the PWD quarters and standing in a ruinous state, posing a danger to vehicular traffic, the public and pedestrians. Accordingly, the joint inspection report opined that this sixth tree needs to be cut and removed urgently. Te Tree Authority, accordingly, granted permission for the felling of this raintree. Te learned Advocate General states that the rain tree has already been removed pursuant to this permission.
9. Tis Petition has alleged that the trees were being felled without permission from the prescribed authorities. Tis premise was not substantiated in the Petition. Merely stating that these two trees were not marked is not sufficient. In any case, the Joint Inspection Report and the permissions granted for the felling of only one tree out of six applied for by the user agency clarify the
Page 3 of 4 23rd April 2024
PILWP-22-24.DOC
position to some extent. One of these trees was permitted to be translocated.
10. If the Petitioner has any grievances about the translocation order, perhaps it would still be open to the Petitioner to appeal the same before the Appellate Authority. In any case, it is open to the Petitioner to offer expert advice or suggestions so that the translocation is a success. If such suggestions are offered, we see no reason why the Authorities, who should also be interested in successful translocation, should not consider them so that the translocation project is a success. Te apprehension about the felling of trees without permission stands allayed with the learned AG’s statement made at the very outset.
11. For all the above reasons, we dispose of this Petition.
12. Tere shall be no order for costs.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J. M. S. SONAK, J.
Page 4 of 4 23rd April 2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trees were felled without necessary permission from the prescribed authorities under the Goa Preservation of Trees Act, 1984.
Whether the proposed translocation of the fifth tree was lawful and sustainable under the facts of the case.
Whether the claim regarding unmarked trees required further averments to substantiate the grievance.
PRAJAL SAKHARDANDE AND ANR.
STATE OF GOA
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
ANR.
M. S. SONAK
VALMIKI MENEZES
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
