Disposed

Shri Naresh Chhetija v. Maharashtra State Bio Diversity Board

NGT13 Aug 2024IA No. 51/2024 in Original Application No. 23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed an appeal regarding the felling of trees in Pune for an eco-park. The court noted respondents would not proceed with recreational parks but directed them to ensure sapling survival using treated sewage water to save potable supplies.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to ensure survival of planted saplings and use treated sewage water for irrigation; objections regarding ecotourism park dismissed.

Shri Naresh Chhetija vs Maharashtra State Bio Diversity… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item Nos.5 & 6

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No.23/2024(WZ) I.A No.51/2024(WZ) Earlier L.P. No.02/2024(WZ)

¶6

Naresh Chhetija & Anr.

¶7

…..Applicants Versus

¶8

Maharashtra State Bio-Diversity Board & Ors.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

Original Application No.64/2024(WZ) Earlier Original Application No.173/2024

¶12

News Item titled “Trees felled for eco-park leave behind barren land” appearing in The Times of India dated 12.01.2024

¶13

Date of hearing: 13.08.2024

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶15

In O.A.23/2024(WZ) Applicant : Applicants in-person along-with Ms. Kshitija M. Sarangi Moreshwar, Advocate Respondents : Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/Biodiversity Board Mr. D. M. Gupte, Advocate for R-2, 4, 6 & 7 Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-3/MPCB In O.A.64/2024(WZ) Respondent : Mr. D. M. Gupte, Advocate for R-1/PCCF

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Original Application No.23/2024(WZ)

¶18

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 29.01.2024, 05.03.2024, 21.03.2024, 26.04.2024 and 22.05.2024.

¶19

In compliance with our previous order dated 22.05.2024, from the

¶20

side of respondent No.1- Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board, reply

¶21

Page 1 of 7

¶22

affidavit dated 03.06.2024 has been filed, wherein it is clarified that the answering respondent does not have any role in construction and developmental activities on Survey Number in question, as the same falls under the jurisdiction of Dy. Conservator of Forests, Pune/respondent No.2.

¶23

In compliance with our previous order dated 22.05.2024, an additional affidavit dated 15.07.2024 on behalf of respondent No.1-PCCF in Original Application No.64/2024(WZ) and on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 & 7 in Original Application No.23/2024(WZ) has been filed, wherein it is submitted that in response to the query made by this Tribunal vide order dated 22.05.2024 in para no.7, it is clarified that it is wrongly stated due to a clerical error as ‘Removing Gliricidia and Tall Plantations’ rather it should be ‘Removing Gliricidia and planting tall plantations’. It is further clarified that the answering respondents intend to remove only Gliricidia and to plant tall plants of local species. They have removed Gliricidia and have already planted tall plants of local species, as per their Work Plan at serial No.1 at page no.52. The work, which has already been completed, has shown in the Work Plan at Serial Nos.1, 11, 13, 18 & 19 at page no.152, which pertain to 1). Removing Gliricidia and planting tall plantations; 11) Water Supply (water tank with water supply from tanker); 13). Pathway; 18) Water Storage tank; and 19) Pipeline along-with bore-well.

¶24

It is further submitted in this affidavit by the above-mentioned respondents that the remaining work, which are mentioned at page nos.152 & 153, are not going to be undertaken. During argument, it is made clear by the learned counsel for answering respondent that the water tank is being set up with a view to sprinkling water upon the new plantation done by them. Pathway is being set up for the person to reach water to the sampling and water to the tank and pipeline along-with bore-

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

well is being set up for the purpose of irrigating these plants and for no other purpose.

¶27

With regard to the work to be done, it is mentioned at page nos.152 & 153 of the paper book, which pertain to a Recreational park and a children park respectively, which are not going to be set up.

¶28

Against this affidavit, rejoinder affidavit dated 15.07.2024 has been filed from the side of applicants, stating therein that the work of removal of the Gliricidia is done by the respondents based on the draft working plan, which is not as per law. The additional affidavit of above-mentioned respondents is silent on the aspect of public access while dealing with Pathway. The construction of water storage tank will lead to breeding of mosquitoes, which creates health problems for the local residents. Pipeline along-with bore-well will diminish ground water reserves, which are significant for the local residents.

¶29

It is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that the original 4-acre woodlot with 25-year-old adult, carbon absorbing trees that needed no human care and hosted a thriving bio-diversity of flora and fauna, has now been replaced with saplings, that will need to be cared for, protected, watered and nurtured till they are safely matured. Therefore, Respondents have created an uncertain dependency in place of a guaranteed asset.

¶30

It is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that the saplings would need lot more water as compared to fully grown trees. The public access for recreation and for the construction of an ecotourism park were the two primary reasons for the evident public discontent, because of which the present Original Application is filed.

¶31

Page 3 of 7

¶32

It is further submitted in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicants that the local community is aggrieved and dissatisfied about the plans for the Eco-Tourism Park originally presented in the GR dated 28^th November 2023. The Respondents’ affidavit is silent on the said GR and that the applicants are concerned that the Respondents may execute the same at a future date. Therefore, an undertaking may be taken from the respondents regarding the same. It is further mentioned that as per the reply of the respondents, they planted 446 saplings of trees in place of the 88 Gliricidia, which were felled. Therefore, it is necessary that directions may be issued to them to provide a periodic survival report for the newly planted saplings and a frequent care and management plan be presented for review. Both these reports should be placed on Department’s website.

¶33

Another affidavit dated 15.07.2024 has been filed by the applicants in the form of objections of the Working Plan Volume I for Pune Forest Division for the period of 2023-24 to 2032-33 issued by the Offices of Deputy Conservators of Forest, wherein objection is raised to the disclaimer, which contains the averment that all the information, statement of area and maps included are only for management purpose and must not be used for any legal purpose or otherwise.

¶34

It is further submitted in this affidavit by the applicants that the local residents have observed that permanent concrete structures have been set up like water tank, sitting space/gazebo, that have been constructed since February 2024 and they have observed continuous movement of Ready Mix Concrete trucks at the place in question. The mature Gliricidia is rapidly being felled without following proper guidelines such as felling in small phases and due coupes only, which is leading to severe loss of green cover. It is also alleged that the respondent

¶35

Page 4 of 7

¶36

No.7 has provided only the Volume I of the draft working plan and not the Volume II to the applicants.

¶37

The respondent No.2– Deputy Conservator of Forests, respondent No.4- Department of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, respondent No.6Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and respondent No.7-Range Forest Officer have filed their reply affidavit dated 10.08.2024 in reply to the objections to the Working Plan issued by the Office of the Dy. Conservator of Forests, wherein it is submitted that said Plan is a Final Approved Plan and not a Draft Plan. As regards disclaimer, it is stated that there is a clerical mistake in the same. The Government of India had issued Working Plan dated 07.11.2023. The structure of a water tank construction is for irrigating new plantation, drip irrigation and to ensure the highest survival of the plantation, which is a forestry activity. The Forest Department had undertaken for construction of a Compound Wall around the reserved forest for the purpose of its protection from encroachment and for that purpose, there was movement of ready mix concrete trucks around the said site. The said work has been completed and ready mix has been taken away from the reserved forest land and there is no machinery equipment or vehicle left in the said reserved forest land.

¶38

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the above-mentioned respondents that the re-generation is commensurate with felling of trees and that the Department has sufficient funds for future maintenance. The work is being done in phase-wise manner, as only Gliricidia species from 2 Ha. out of total 25.52 Ha. area of Survey No.49 has been removed.

¶39

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by the above-mentioned respondents that there were around 204 trees of various species in the park area (the learned counsel for applicants has raised objection to the

¶40

Page 5 of 7

¶41

word “Park” which is used here, to which the learned counsel for answering respondents has responded by saying that the ‘Park’ amounts here to ‘reserve forest area’) and out of them, 88 Gliricidia trees were replaced in accordance with the Plan of the Park, which has been approved by the Eco-Tourism Board. In the area of the Park, around 788 trees of native species have been planted by replacement of Gliricidia trees. Volume II of the Draft Plan has also been supplied to the applicants.

¶42

Today, a rejoinder affidavit dated 12.08.2024 to the affidavit in reply dated 10.08.2024 to the objections of the Working Plan has been filed by the applicants, wherein we find nothing but a reiteration of earlier facts, which have already been mentioned in the earlier affidavits filed by the applicants.

¶43

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and having perused the entire record, we are of the view that in view of the clear affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2– Deputy Conservator of Forests, respondent No.4- Department of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, respondent No.6-Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and respondent No.7-Range Forest Officer, saying that as regards the setting up of eco-tourism park and recreational park, they are not going to pursue the same and that only the work, which is going to be done under the Working Plan, relates to the uprooting of Gliricidia trees and planting of plants of local species. Therefore, in our estimation, whatever objections were raised by the applicants in respect of setting up of ecotourism park and recreational park in the area in question does not survive. The plantations, which have already been done, the applicants fear that whether they would survive or not and proper care should be taken, for which we are also in agreement with their view and would like

¶44

Page 6 of 7

¶45

to pass an order to the effect that the trees, which have been planted, must be ensured that they survive, by taking all possible precautions.

¶46

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 & 7 has stated before us that the said respondents have already placed six monthly report with regard to the plantation of samplings and their survival on their websites.

¶47

Looking to the crisis of potable water, we also deem it appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 & 7 to use the treated sewage water from Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for the purpose of irrigating the said new plantation so that potable water is saved.

¶48

With the above-mentioned directions, we dispose of Original Application No.23/2024(WZ) accordingly.

¶49

We direct that if any breach is committed by the above-mentioned respondents, applicants are at liberty to approach us.

¶50

In view of directions passed in Original Application No.23/2024(WZ), we do not find anything survives in the Original Application No.64/2024(WZ) and it is accordingly disposed of.

¶51

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶52

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶53

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶54

August 13, 2024 Original Application No.23/2024(WZ) I.A No.51/2024(WZ) Earlier L.P. No.02/2024(WZ) With Original Application No.64/2024(WZ) Earlier Original Application No.173/2024 P.Kr

¶55

Page 7 of 7

Shri Naresh Chhetija v. Maharashtra State Bio Diversity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Naresh Chhetija v. Maharashtra State Bio Diversity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohan Vir Singh vs Virender

Soban Singh Rana vs Roshan Lal Uniyal

Soban Singh Rana vs Roshan Lal Uniyal

M/S Rahul Paharia Mine vs Union of India

Prasad Haribhau Jadhav vs Godavari Biorefineries Ltd.

Smt Haripriya Patel vs State of Odisha

Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India

Parmjeet Singh vs 1. Union of India

Shri Yogesh Harichandra Bhoier vs Ms Blue Jet Healthcare Ltd.

The Goa Rivers Sand Protectors Network vs Seiaa

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

Gavhan Koliwada Matsyavyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Gavhan Koliwada through Its Chairman Shri. Hitesh Harichandra Koli vs City and Industrial Development Corporation through Its Chairperson

Shri Naresh Chhetija vs Maharashtra State Bio Diversity Board