Disposed

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2025 in Original Application No. 702/2024 of Baljinder Singh vs

NGT30 Apr 2025Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2025 in Original Application No. 702/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of a miscellaneous application regarding alleged illegal tree cutting on private land. Rejecting the officials' view that no action was needed, the court found the applicants offered no evidence and the site had no tree remains, holding no further action was required.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Application was disposed of with no further action required.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2025 in… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 07

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Misc Application in Disposed of Cases No. 18/2025

¶5

¶6

Original Application No. 702/2024

¶7

Baljinder Singh & Anr. Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 30.04.2025

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Applicant: None for the Applicants.

¶14

Respondents: Mr. Bhupendra Singh and Mr. Premsagar Pal, AAG for State of Punjab for respondent no. 1 to 4. Mr. Anchit Singla, Advocate for PPCB Respondent no. 5.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The applicants-Mr. Baljinder Singh, son of Sadhu Singh and Jasvir Singh, son of Madho Singh, residents of Village Mullanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, had sent to this Tribunal a letter petition dated 11.10.2023, which was treated and registered as O.A. No. 702/2024 for exercise of suo motu jurisdiction.

¶17

The applicants raise the grievances that 12.09.2023 Gurmeet Kaur, Kulwinder Singh alias Pappu, Gurpreet Singh Fauji and 3-4 unknown persons had illegally cut about 30 trees planted in Gurudwara Bhujeana Sahib, Village Mullanpur five years ago without seeking permission from the Competent Authority.

¶18

¶19

The above said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal by order dated 25.07.2024. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

¶20

“2. In our view, complaint made in this application, at the first instance, can be looked into by the concerned local authorities and hence, we dispose of this Original Application by constituting a Joint Committee comprising Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana and Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana.

¶21

3. Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana shall be the Nodal Agency for co-ordination and compliance.

¶22

4. The said Committee shall visit the site, collect relevant information and if finds any violation of environmental law, would take appropriate remedial action in accordance with law within two months and submit a Compliance Report with Registrar General of this Tribunal, who, if finds any further order necessary, may place the matter before the Bench.

¶23

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

¶24

In compliance thereof, report dated 04.12.2024 of the Joint Committee has been filed by Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana. The relevant part of the report reads as under:-

¶25

“ Short Reply of Rajesh Kumar PFS Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana in compliance to order dated July 25, 2024. X X X X X 3. That in compliance to the order of Hon’ble National Green Tribunal the site was visited/inspected by the committee comprising Naib Tehsildar, Mullanpur Dakha and Forest Range Officer, Ludhiana and subsequently by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana. The Committee came out with the conclusion that the site from where it was alleged that 30 trees have been cut five years ago, comes under the ownership of private land of Mr. Kuldeep Singh Son of Beant Singh Son of Dalip Singh and others have been recorded as co-owners in Khasra no. 64/21 (518), pure chai and 64/26 (1-1) and at the spot 2 rooms and boundary wall and empty place and flag is constructed and said Khasra no. copy of Farad Jamabandi is attached (Annexure-1) 4. That statement of some private persons namely Santokh Singh Son of Jagir Singh, Malkit Singh son of Sadhu Singh, Navdeep Kaur daughter of Kulwinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh Son of Beant Singh all residents of Mullanpur were recorded on spot in the presence of Sarpanch Mullanpur which clearly shows that the land from which it is alleged that five year back trees were cut is a private land.

¶26

5. That on spot presently there is no evidence or remains from which species or girth of the trees can be ascertained.

¶27

¶28

6. That there is no restriction for a person to cut trees on private land and accordingly there is no violation and no action is supposed to be taken in this case.”

¶29

Considering further orders by this Tribunal to be necessary the matter has been listed before the Bench by registering the report as M.A. No. 18/2025.

¶30

Vide order dated 10.02.2025 this Tribunal impleaded (1) State of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, (2) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), Government of Punjab; (3) Divisional Forest Officer, Ludhiana and (4) District Magistrate, Ludhiana and (5) Punjab Pollution Control Board as respondents no. 1 to 5 and ordered issuance of notices to them requiring them to file their reply/response at least three days before the date of hearing fixed.

¶31

Pursuant thereto, reply dated 28.03.2025 has been filed by respondents no. 1 and 2- Chief Secretary, Punjab and PCCF (HoFF), Punjab. Short reply dated 28.03.2025 has been filed by respondent no. 3- Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Ludhiana. Report dated 29.03.2025 has been filed by respondent no. 4-District Magistrate (DM), Ludhiana.

¶32

The relevant part of the short reply dated 28.03.2025 filed by respondent no. 3-DFO, Ludhiana is reproduced below:-

¶33

“X X X X

¶34

7). That as per the report of the Joint Committee submitted by deponent in this Hon'ble Tribunal, the area Khasra no. 64//21 (5-18) and 64//26 (1-1) of Village Mullanpur, Tehsil Mullanpur Dakhan, District Ludhiana from where 30 trees are alleged to have been cut illegally is a private property owned by private individuals as per Revenue Record (Fard Jamabandi).

¶35

8). That as detailed in the above para, it is pertinent to mention here that the area from where the trees are alleged to have been felled is a private property. Further the said area is neither owned by/falls under the jurisdiction of State/Central Government nor the Forest Department. Therefore, no action can be taken by the Forest Department as per prevalent Acts/Laws/Policies.

¶36

¶37

Keeping in view the report of the Joint Committee as detailed above, it is humbly prayed the present Original Application along with M.A. may kindly be dismissed.”

¶38

9. In their reply dated 28.03.2025 respondents no. 1 and 2- Chief Secretary, Punjab and PCCF (HoFF), Punjab and in his reply respondent no. 4-DM, Ludhiana have endorsed the stand taken in the reply filed by respondent no. 3-DFO, Ludhiana and have submitted that the area from where the trees are alleged to have been felled is a private property and is neither owned by/falls under the jurisdiction of State/Central Government nor the Forest Department and no action can be taken by the Forest Department as per prevalent Acts/Laws/Policies.

¶39

We do not agree with the stand taken by the above said officers of the Government of Punjab that there is no restriction for a person to cut trees on private land and accordingly there is no violation and no action is required to be taken for such illegal cutting of trees. Since number of cases involving this question are pending before this Tribunal for adjudication we refrain from expressing any conclusive opinion in the present case as the same is not essentially required in view of the factual matrix made out by the material on record.

¶40

In the present case the applicants have merely sent the letter petition to this Tribunal without producing any cogent material in support of the allegations made in the same. The applicants did not appear before this Tribunal and did not produce any material during hearing of the case on 25.07.2024 or thereafter. The Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal has concluded that presently there is no evidence or remains on the spot from which species or girth of the trees can be ascertained.

¶41

¶42

In these facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that no further action is required to be taken on the present Miscellaneous Application which is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶44

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶45

April 30^th , 2025 Misc Application in Disposed of Cases No. 18/2025 In Original Application No. 702/2024/AG

¶46

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2025 in Original Application No. 702/2024 of Baljinder Singh vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2025 in Original Application No. 702/2024 of Baljinder Singh vs

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

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 38/2024 in Original Application No. 257/2023 of Balbir Dass vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 51/2025 in Original Application No. 940/2024 of Gaurav So Sh Ratan Lal vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 49/2025 in Original Application No. 620/2023 of Prashant Sharma vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2025 in Original Application No. 297/2023 of Nakul Kapoor vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 19/2025 in Original Application No. 258/2024 of Banibrata Mukherjee vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 52/2025 in Original Application No. 742/2024 of Madan Sen S/O Late Jagdish Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2025 in Appeal No. 24/2022 of Satyanarayan Rao vs Union of India

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 48/2025 in Original Application No. 739/2022 of Nyay Prayaas Foundation vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 51/2025 in Original Application No. 940/2024 of Gaurav So Sh Ratan Lal vs

Nayaka Soren vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 49/2025 in Original Application No. 620/2023 of Prashant Sharma vs

Mr Ashok Kumar and Anr. So Late Sh Dharam Singh vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 19/2025 in Original Application No. 258/2024 of Banibrata Mukherjee vs

Sukhbir Singh vs Union of India