Disposed

Manjit Singh v. Sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur

NGT5 Sept 2024Original Application No. 635/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged the cutting of approximately 25-30 trees from Panchayati land alleging environmental damage. The Tribunal considered reports stating the trees had been cleared to construct a community park, denying allegations of illegal sale. Finding the area now serves as a community asset improving the local environment, no further order was deemed necessary.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application was disposed of as the alleged environmental damage was not found to exist and the area development benefits the community.

Manjit Singh vs Sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Court No. 2

¶2

Item No. 11

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 635/2023

¶5

Manjit Singh Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 05.09.2024

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: Applicant in Person

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, AAG with Ms. Surbhi Soni, Advocate for State of Punjab Mr. Baljinder Singh, Member, Panchayat.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Original Application was registered at the instance of Manjit Singh S/o Ram Prakash and Ranjit Singh, S/o Atma Singh, residents of Village Binjal, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana, Punjab under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’ ).

¶15

Applicants have stated that about 25-30 trees from Panchayati land of Village Bingal have been cut from Khasra No. 455 by respondent 1 who is Sarpanch and respondent 2 to 7 who are members of Gram Panchayat, in an illegal manner, without obtaining permission from competent authorities and thereby environment has been damaged. Reliance is placed on a report dated 4^th /5^th December, 2020 of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Raikot wherein it is reported that

¶16

¶17

the said officer visited the site and found many trees uprooted on the spot.

¶18

Tribunal took cognizance of matter on 16.10.2023 and at the first instance found it appropriate to issue notices to respondents 1 and 10 only.

¶19

Pursuant to order dated 16.10.2023, District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘DDPO’ ) i.e., respondent 10, filed its reply affidavit dated 24.01.2024 stating that after receiving complaint of uprooting/cutting of trees of 25 to 30 trees and selling thereof in an illegal matter, a letter dated 25.02.2022 was issued by Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Jalandhar, pursuant whereto, DDPO submitted a detailed report dated 13.04.2022 stating that no 25 to 30 trees existed on the spot; only two or three trees i.e., dry trees had fallen and remaining are bushes and rurians which were cleared up by the panchayat with JCB and fallen trees were kept in adjoining Dharamshala. Cleaning of area was done by Panchayat for the purpose of constructing a park over the land in question.

¶20

In para 4, DDPO has said as under:-

¶21

“4. That in the meantime, in response to the letter dated 25.3.2022 (Annexure R-10/1) issued by the office of the office of the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development - and Panchayat, Jalandhar, the office of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana, submitted a detailed report vide its letter dated 13.4.2022, wherein it is reported that no 25 to 30 trees existed at the spot. Only two or three i.e. the dry trees had fallen and the remaining are bushes and rurian, which have been got cleared up by the Panchayat with J.C.B and the dry and fallen trees were kept in the adjoining Dharamshala by the panchayat, The Gram Panchayat wanted to construct a park over this land and on that account the cleaning was done and the people who are in possession of the adjoining place, they do not want the construction of park over this place, because then there will

¶22

¶23

be no space left for the ruries, keeping Pathian and for growing vegetables etc .. After seeing the spot personally, the Block development and Panchayat Officer, Block Raikot came to the conclusion that two - three dry trees had fallen in Khasra No. 455 and they were kept in M.C. Dharamshala by Gram Panchayat Binjal and seven Lilac, 1 Barotan and a Ficus tree are presently in existence there. No trees were sold. The office of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ludhiana in agreement with the letter No. 654 dated 13.05.2021 issued by Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Raikot forwarded report for further necessary action. A true translated copy of the report dated 13.4.2022 is being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-10/2T and its true copy as ANNEXURE R-10/2.”

¶24

Respondent 1 has also filed reply dated 03.04.2024 stating that applicant- Manjit Singh filed a Writ Petition No. CWP 19773 of 2022 before Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed by High Court vide order dated 17.11.2022. However, from record we find that Writ Petition was filed by Gurdas Singh and others and after making enquiry, High Court found that no case was made out against respondents and Writ Petition was disposed of as infructuous. Order of High Court read as under:-

¶25

“Status report on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5 has been filed in the Court. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to learned. counsel for the petitioners.

¶26

Based on the aforementioned report, learned State counsel submits that an enquiry has already been conducted and that the private respondent has been exonerated .

¶27

In view of the aforementioned submission, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such .”

¶28

Applicant Manjeet Singh is present in person and stated that he had not filed any Writ Petition in High Court and this fact is admitted by Sh. Baljinder Singh, respondent 4 who is present in person before Tribunal.

¶29

¶30

Be that as it may, reply of respondent 1 further said that for the purpose of constructing a park on land in question, land was cleared of bushes, etc. but when litigation started, work was stopped. It is denied that respondents have cut 25 to 30 trees on the land in question. Report of Block Development and Panchayat Officer is also disputed by stating that the same appears to have been prepared sitting in office.

¶31

DDPO has filed a further short reply dated 01.04.2024, filed vide email dated 07.04.2024, stating that enquiry was conducted on complaint regarding uprooting of trees at Khasra No. 455 and finding the same to be incorrect, matter was returned in favour of Gram Panchayat; area in question has been cleared of bushes etc. for making a park for benefit of the people at large; Panchayat has planted more than 2000 trees across the village during their tenure, constructed a park on Khasra No 105 and playground on Khasra No 106; about 200 bigus plants have been planted in playground and about 100 plants in the adjoining park in Kasra no 105; on an average 400 to 500 trees are being planted by Panchayat annually.

¶32

A further short reply dated 03.09.2024 has been filed by DDPO stating that Panchayat decided to get the park constructed under MNREGA Scheme by spending a sum of Rupees about 9.7 lakhs; construction of park is near completion; it has a boundary wall along with a fence, grass and plants and about 100 plants have been planted in park and area of Khasra No. 455 now been converted into a community asset which is adding to the environment.

¶33

Manjit Singh, applicant one, is present personally and stated that since park is being developed, he has no objection in development of the area in question as park.

¶34

¶35

In view of discussion above and considering the fact that the complaint of alleged cutting of 25 to 30 trees has not been found true at the site by DDPO and further since the area in question has been developed as part for the benefit of the community at large, which will add to the improvement of quality of air and quality of local environment, we do not find that any further order is required to be passed in the matter.

¶36

Accordingly, this Original Application is disposed of.

¶37

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶38

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶39

September 05, 2024 Original Application No. 635/2023 AB

¶40

Manjit Singh v. Sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh v. Sarpanch Jaswinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Mohan Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hassina Wajid (Sarpanch) vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Tahir Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

Abhilash vs the Chief Secretary

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

Deep Chandra vs Divisional Forest Officer-Nainital Forest Division

Hassina Wajid (Sarpanch) vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Sarita Singh vs

Mohit Goel and Ors. vs

Sonu Rana and Ors. vs

Gargubai Nikhil vs

Eas Sarma Former Secretary to the Government of India Vishapatnam vs