Disposed

Satish Kumar v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT9 Sept 2024Original Application No. 119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal directed the Haryana State Pollution Control Board to compute and recover environmental compensation for illegal tree felling, apply the 'Polluter Pays' principle, and utilize the funds for remediation within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed HSPCB to compute and recover environmental compensation from violators, prepare a remediation plan within one month, and file a compliance report by 15.01.2025.

Satish Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Court No. 2

¶2

Item No.04

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No.119/2024

¶5

Satish Kumar Applicant Versus

¶6

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Respondent

¶7

Date of hearing: 09.09.2024

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

Applicant(s): Applicant in person

¶10

Respondent(s): Mr. Jai Bansal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 (through VC) Mr. Nitin Yadav and Ms. Madhu Lata Advocate for Respondents No. 2 and 5 Mr. Rahul Khurana Advocate for Respondents No. 3, 4 and 6

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Original Application was entertained on a letter petition 18.01.2024 submitted by Satish Kumar S/o Chandra Singh who made a complaint of illegal felling of more than 100 trees from Gouchar land within Revenue Village Jhaswna. Complaints were made to Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar, District Development and Panchayat Officer, Jhajjar but no action was taken. Applicant has also deposited requisite court fees and thereafter cognizance was taken on 17.02.2024. Following were impleaded as respondents:

¶13

¶14

I. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF & CC)

¶15

II. Ms. Saroj Devi.

¶16

In view of the averments made in the application, Tribunal considered it appropriate to have response of State of Haryana through District Magistrate, Jajjar, District Development of Panchayat Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘DDPO’), Jajjar, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jhanswa, Tehsil Matenhail, District Jajjar and Member Secretary, Haryana State Pollution Control Board and impleaded them also as respondents.

¶17

Pursuant thereto notices were issued to respondents requiring them to file replies.

¶18

Pursuant thereto DDPO has submitted reply dated 20.03.2024 stating that District Magistrate, Jhajjar directed District Forest Officer, Jhajjar to carry out a detailed inspection alongwith Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Matanhail for the assessment of number of trees which were cut, as alleged by complainant. Accordingly a joint inspection was made and it was found that approximately 188 trees were cut which were not property of Forest Department Provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 are also not applicable to the said land. In such cases permission of Gram Panchayat was necessary for cutting of trees.

¶19

Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar sought assistance of Deputy Conservator of Forest for computing the cost of trees vide letter dated 27.03.2024, in reply whereto, Deputy Conservator of Forest vide letter dated 09.04.2024 informed that as per the details given in the letter dated 27.03.2024, cost of trees would come to 235429/- Details of

¶20

¶21

computation supplied by Deputy Conservator Forest, Jhajjar to Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar read as under:

¶22

Sr N	*Specie* s	*U/S* *Poll* *Size*	*Class* V	*Class* IV	*Class* *III*	*Class* *IIA*	*Class* *IIB*	*Class* IA	*Total* *tress*	*Volum* e
1	Kikar	0	4665*	0	0	1623* 5	1105* 50	0	6	3.35m 3
2.	Misc.	123* 8	8047* 6	7210* 53 *Tota*	1927* 50 *lprice+*	1049* 60 _235429 _	0	0	182	37.01 m3

¶23

Accordingly, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Matanhail District Jhajjar issued letter dated 10.04.2024 to respondents 2 and 5 for payment of Rs. 235429/- and to get it deposited in the account of Gram Panchayat so as to be utilized for plantation of three times of trees which were illegally cut.

¶24

Block Development and Panchayat Officer also conducted a thorough inquiry along with complainant and submitted a report that Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jhaswna was prima-facie not discharging duties in official capacity as per the policy framed under Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and recommended to initiate proceedings against Sarpanch under Section 51 of said Act.

¶25

Haryana State Pollution Control Board submitted its report dated 10.04.2024, containing a reply similar to that of DDPO’s.

¶26

Reply dated 26.05.2024 has been received from Respondent 1, which states that where issue of felling of trees on non-forest land is raised, the same is regulated by various enactments made by certain States, and State authorities are responsible for their compliance.

¶27

Reply by email dated 20.08.2024 has been submitted by Respondents 2 and 5, stating that District Jhajjar does not come under

¶28

¶29

PLPA Act, 1900. Further, in 2022, Respondent 2 and Smt. Manisha w/o Ajit Singh contested election for Sarpanch, in which Smt. Manisha lost. Applicant Satish Kumar is a close friend of Atar Singh, who is the brother-in-law of Smt. Manisha, and instigated applicant to file the present application; therefore, proceedings in question are malicious. It is also said that applicant himself has cut the trees in collusion with some other persons namely Manjit and Satyawan, sons of Rambir, Chiku son of Chang, Rajesh son of Bhim Singh, Atar Singh son of Ishwar Singh, Diwan Singh son of Amar Singh, Raju son of Ajay and Amit son of Mange Ram. They are all associated with applicant and some other family members of Atar Singh who is friend of applicant. Respondent 2 and 5 had given complaints to Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar vide letter dated 02.11.2023 and to Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar vide letters dated 06.11.2023 and 04.04.2024 about cutting of trees and theft of water from the pond of Gram Panchayat. On the merits of matter it is said that the respondents 2 and 5 have not cut any tree and the compliant is incorrect.

¶30

Further reply has been filed by Regional Officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘ HSPCB ’) stating that sum of Rs.235429/-has been deposited by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jhanswa. She has also been suspended and department proceedings have been initiated under the order passed on 14.08.2024 of Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar.

¶31

On the question as to why for illegal cutting of trees and damage caused to the environment no environmental compensation has been imposed by HSPCB, Regional Officer has stated that at present no methodology /procedure for imposition of environmental compensation has been laid down and therefore, recommendation for

¶32

¶33

formulation/estimation of environmental compensation has been made to head office of HSPCB vide letter dated 05.09.2024.

¶34

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2 sought to argue that the amount of Rs.2,35429/- has not been deposited by her but it has been deposited by some Anand. We are not inclined to enter into identity dispute of persons who actually deposited above amount. It is evident from record that order was passed against respondents 2 and 5 for deposit of Rs. 2,35,429/- and the same has been deposited and compliance report has also been filed which is on record as AnnexureR/3 page158. The information can validity be drawn that it has been deposited by respondents 2 and 5.

¶35

In these circumstances, it is incumbent and statutory obligation upon HSPCB to determine and recover environmental compensation for the damaged caused to the environment due to illegal cutting of 188 trees and the said statutory exercise of power cannot be deferred on any pretext. Principles of Polluters Pay apply that wherever there is damage to environment violator has to pay environmental compensation for remediation of environment and that is principle recognized by Supreme Court in a catena of cases i.e. Indian Council for Enviro Legal action vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 77 , Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 and Research Foundation for Science vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 186.

¶36

Accordingly, we direct respondent 6 to compute and recover environmental compensation for illegal cutting of trees from the violators in accordance with law and submit a compliance report within two months.

¶37

¶38

Amount of environmental compensation recovered from the violator shall be utilized by HSPCB for restoration/remediation of environment in accordance with restoration which shall be prepared by a Joint Committee comprising Divisional Forest Officer, Jhajjar and HSPCB, wherein HSPCB shall be the Nodal authority. The said plan shall be prepared within one month after recovery of amount of environment compensation and shall be utilized within three months thereafter. A compliance report shall be filed by 15.01.2025 with Registrar General of this Tribunal. If any further order is required, Registrar General shall place the matter before appropriate Bench.

¶39

With above directions, this Original Application is disposed of.

¶40

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶41

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶42

September 09, 2024 Original Application No.119/2024 M

¶43

Satish Kumar v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prayag Hospital & Research Center Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

News Item Titled "4 Die in Chhattisgarh Mine Collapse" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 28.02.2024 vs Chattisgarh Environment Conservation Board

Jitendra @ Raja Lilhare vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Nadeem Ahmad Dar vs

Harender Kumar vs

News Item Titled "Gurdaspur Video of Illegal Sand Mining Goes Viral Probe on" Appearing in Babushahi Dated 07.02.2024 vs

Milind Thakre vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary (Forest)

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) vs Moef

Prayag Hospital & Research Center Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Nadeem Ahmad Dar vs

Prayag Hospital & Research Center Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Dr Gaurav Thakral vs

Kaushalya Sharma vs Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority

Kaushalya Sharma vs Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority