Allowed

Mahesh Chandra vs

NGT22 Nov 2024Original Application No. 1272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT constituted a bench to address concerns raised about concretization of pavements around trees in Dehradun hindering tree growth and groundwater recharge. Relying on prior precedents regarding roadside plantations and tree protection, the Tribunal directed specific authorities to prevent total concretization and ensure green belts remain permeable.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Municipal Corporation, Dehradun, MDAA, DM, UPSCB, and DFO to ensure no concretization/tilling effects tree growth, leaves space for green cover, and protects natural groundwater r

Mahesh Chandra vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.01 Court No. 2

¶2

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 1272/2024

¶4

Mahesh Chandra Applicant(s) Versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent(s)

¶5

Date of hearing: 22.11.2024

¶6

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

¶7

A pplicants: None

¶8

ORDER

¶9

A letter petition dated 29.06.2024 has been filed by Mahesh Chanra resident of 161-Mata Mandir Road, Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun State of Uttarakhand which has been registered as Original Application under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ NGT Act, 2010 ’) for exercising suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Versus Ankita Sinha and Others, (2022) 13 SCC 401 .

¶10

Complainant has said that he is a vigilant environmentalist working for protection of greenery and trees and taking steps for protection of trees. In the process of making Dehradun Smart City some

¶11

¶12

construction activities have been undertaken which includes putting of iron guards around matured trees; concretization/placement of concrete tiles and burnt debris around the trees without leaving any space for water absorption and growth of trees and nailing of trees for placement sign boards etc., by Local Bodies i.e., Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Nagar Maha Palika, Dehradun and other authorities. Some photographs have been placed in support of averments.

¶13

Placement of iron guard for protection of trees per se may not be said to a damaging step for trees and encircling of tree leaving one meter space around it by raising a brick wall also cannot be said to the per se illegal.

¶14

However, concretization of pavements and covering of trees on the pavements and roadsides without leaving any space is not conducive for growth and protection of trees as it has adverse effect on natural water recharging system and other consequences adverse to environment. These aspects have already been considered by Tribunal on earlier occasions.

¶15

In Execution Application No.29/2018 in OA 386/2016, Society for Protection of Culture, Heritage, Environment, Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness Versus National Highway Authority of India & Ors. , in respect of protection of environment along the highways, Tribunal has referred to guidelines for roadside plantations given in Chapter 11 and maintenance of roadside plantation in Chapter 10 of IRC:SP:21-2009 Guidelines. The relevant extract recorded from said guidelines in the said judgment reads as under:

¶16

“i. The first row along the Highways will be of small to medium sized ornamental trees.

¶17

¶18

ii. Subsequent rows, depending on the availability of width, will comprise of ornamental and/or shade bearing species, or more height than those in the first row. In rural sections, the last row will always be of shade bearing tall treas.

¶19

iii. Planting of shrubs in the median.

¶20

iv. Planting of herbaceous species as ground cover in the median, special landscapes and embankment slopes.

¶21

v. Turfing with grass in the median, special landscapes and embankment slopes .”

¶22

In the above judgment, Tribunal has observed that 2009 Guidelines purport to give effect to ‘Sustainable Development Principle’ of environment. Construction of highway results in felling of trees and project proponent needs to mitigate environmental loss from all possible angles. Land needed for avenue plantations and landscape improvement must be planned. Width of Right of Way must be sufficient. Measures for landscape have been suggested in the Guidelines. Tree plantation is to be treated as an important component which should be functional for protection of slopes providing shade in summer, for aesthetic effects and overall beauty.

¶23

Guidelines also provide for detailed measures for roadside plantation and maintenance with the purported object of mitigating pollution, providing shade, reducing noise pollution, soil erosion, tree species, plantation pattern etc. The Policy reiterates the 2009 Guidelines. It is acknowledged that roadside plantation is not satisfactory in most of the projects implemented through BOT, DBFOT and public funded projects. The nodal agency for forest areas should be the concerned Forest Officer. In case of public funded projects, the concerned Regional Officer of MoRTH/NHAI should be the nodal agency. In cases where roadside plantation is included in the concession agreement, the

¶24

¶25

concerned concessionaire should be the nodal agency. The policy states that development of green highways was necessary by outsourcing plantation work for which institutional arrangement and financing pattern was laid down with details of plantation scheme and a monitoring agency. MoRTH is to review the Policy from time to time. The Policy also formulates model TOR to offset the loss of trees and other changes. Green corridor development and management rather than highway development is the objective.

¶26

In OA 346/2019, Environment Protection Society (Regd.) Versus State of Punjab & Ors., Tribunal considered issue of illegal concretization of trees and filling up of tree pits with concrete and bitumen. A Joint Committee was constituted by Tribunal and said Committee submitted Report, making following recommendations:

¶27

“(i) To prevent the damage of the root system of trees the area of 1 meter should be left de-concretized around the base of the trees where ever possible while construction of the pavements or roads to facilitate percolation of water to the roots. The area should be levelled with earth/soil and grass may be planted where ever it is possible. It is also suggested to discourage concretization/tiling of central verge of the roads/pathways.

¶28

(ii) On narrower roads and paths, as far as possible, unpaved or katcha effective area of at least 1 square meter be left around the trees.

¶29

(iii) The trees which are already concretized should be deconcretized manually without damaging the roots of the trees.

¶30

(iv) Due precaution should be taken in future so that no within one meter radius of the trunk of trees. This even should be the part of contracting agreements by the Municipal Corporation / Concerned local Government.

¶31

(v) If public demands for the tiling of parking in from of their houses, then the same can be allowed to do by themselves with the conditions of leaving the minimum space around the tree (square meter).

¶32

(vi) After removal of malba / concrete material etc., around the trees as the space will be filled with good soil should be carried out simultaneously.

¶33

¶34

(vii) Maintain the Enumeration resister of the existing trees by the Municipal Corporation and the same should be updated yearly to have the checks of trees protection.

¶35

(viii) The trees which died due to the concretization should be replaced by the Municipal Corporation with the suitable tree species.

¶36

(ix) For the effective implementation of the above aspects a Tree Officer can be designated by the Municipal Corporation.”

¶37

Tribunal accepted the above recommendations and directed concerned authorities to act upon thereon and disposed of Original Application by order dated 08.08.2019.

¶38

In OA 82/2023, Aditya N. Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. , on

¶39

23.04.2013, for protection of trees, in the urban areas on the road side, Tribunal issued following directions:

¶40

“(i) All the sign boards, names, advertisements, any kind of boards or signages, electric wires and high tension cables or otherwise are removed from the trees forthwith.

¶41

(ii) They shall also ensure that the concrete surrounding the trees within one metre of the trees are removed forthwith and all the trees are looked after well and due precaution is taken in future so that no concrete or construction or repairing work is done atleast within one metre radius of the trunk of trees. The ViceChairperson, the Commissioner, the Chief Engineer, the Director General and all other senior most officers of the Departments/authorities concerned shall be personally responsible for carrying out this order.

¶42

(iii) The Departments/authorities concerned shall take all and every probihibitive measures to prevent the defacing of the trees in any manner whatsoever, save only its trimming accordance with law. in

¶43

(iv) All the respondents whose boards are fixed on the trees shall be prosecuted by the respective authorities under in accordance with the relevant law.”

¶44

¶45

11. In OA 62/2021, Kapil Dev Versus State of Punjab & Ors. vide

¶46

order dated 10.03.2021, Tribunal passed following directions:

¶47

“1. This application seeks direction to remove cement concrete around the tree bottom/base to ensure open space of 1 meter around the trees, which is necessary for growth of the trees. The applicant has stated that Municipal Corporation Ludhiana (MCL), Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authorities (GLADA) as well as Ludhiana Improvement Trust (LIT) are continuing with the practice and working of fixing of solid pavers (interlocking tiles) on the side of road i.e. within green belt areas in Ludhiana. Further, the periphery of the bottom i.e. base area of trees at ground level is being covered by pouring cement concrete and/or fixing paver tiles resulting into damage to roots of trees. The concerned officials of MCL, GLADA as well LIT, without consulting the Horticulturist and Environment Experts about the effect of concrete around bottom of trees, are continuously covering the areas around the trees with cement concrete and fixing the interlocking tiles (paver) over it. Both sides of roads are being covered with cement concrete and paver blocks and this practice has not only resulted in stopping the penetration of rain water into earth’s surface but is also acting as slow poison for existing trees and plants. Further, there is no space left for green covers in the green belts too. Such act of Respondents is causing severe damage to environment.

¶48

2. The applicant has relied upon earlier order of this Tribunal dated 23.04.2013 in O.A. No. 82/2013, Aditya N. Prasad v. UOI & Ors which is as follows: -

¶49

“(i)…xxx……………………………..xxx……………………………… .xxx (ii) They shall also ensure that the concrete surrounding the trees within one metre of the trees are removed forthwith and all the trees are looked after well and due precaution is taken in future so that no concrete or construction or repairing work is done atleast within one metre radius of the trunk of trees. The Vice Chairperson, the Commissioner, the Chief Engineer, the Director General and all other senior most officers of the Departments/authorities concerned shall be personally responsible for carrying out this order.”

¶50

3. The Tribunal has also dealt with similar issue vide order dated 08.08.2019 in O.A. No.346/2019, Environment Protection Society (Regd.) v. State of Punjab and passed similar order.

¶51

4. Accordingly, MCL, GLADA and LIT may take remedial action in accordance with law.

¶52

¶53

The application is disposed of.

¶54

A copy of this order be forwarded to MCL, GLADA and LIT by email for compliance.”

¶55

The Above directions passed in OA 346/2019 (supra) , OA 62/2021 (supra) and OA 82/2013 (supra) were reiterated in OA 131/2021, H.C. Arora vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

¶56

In view of the above, we direct Municipal Corporation, Dehradun; Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority; District Magistrate, Deharadun; Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board; Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun to look into the matter and ensure that concretization/tiling of pavements should not be in such a way so as to effect growth of trees and also natural recharge system of groundwater; sufficient space is left of green cover in the greenbelts also and there should not be entire concretization or placement of impermeable tiles in such areas.

¶57

With the above directions, this Original Application is disposed of.

¶58

Copy of this order be forwarded to Municipal Corporation, Dehradun; Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority; District Magistrate, Deharadun; Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board; Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun by email for requisite compliance.

¶59

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶60

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶61

November 22, 2024 Original Application No. 1272/2024 M

¶62

Mahesh Chandra vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chandra vs

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

Shri Raju Goyal vs State of Maharashtra through Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri vs Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

Gaurav Chaturvedi vs State of Gujarat through District Magistrate Surat

Shalbhjit Singh vs

Bajrang Agarwal vs

Swaminathan vs

Akash Dubey vs Union of India

Monu vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Shamrao Kadam vs

Bharat Prakash Rai vs

Mahendra Pratap Singh Chouhan vs

Anurag Sharma vs

R B Singh vs

Jai Prakash Harwani vs