Disposed

Tejasvi Minhas v. Public Works Division

NGT6 May 2025Original Application No. 1208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined a complaint regarding the alleged illegal felling of heritage trees. Relying on a joint committee report confirming due procedure and the absence of heritage trees, the court directed a site inspection to verify the survival of planted saplings and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the joint committee to inspect the new plantation, verify survivorship, ensure replanting of non-survivors, and report within eight weeks.

Tejasvi Minhas vs Public Works Division — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 15

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 1208/2024

¶5

Tejasvi Minhas Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Public Works Division & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 06.05.2025

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Tejasvi Minhas, Applicant in Person (Through VC)

¶11

Respondent: Mr. Shubham Bhalla & Ms. Neha Verma, Advs. for R - 1, 5 & 6 (PWD North & Executive Engineer)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this Original Application (OA) the complaint of the Applicant is in respect of illegal felling of 20 heritage trees in the premises of Civil Surgeon Office, Jalandhar. The applicant has pleaded that the Government of Punjab had ordered demolition of old Civil Surgeon Office building to make a new 100-bedded Critical Care Unit. The Applicant alleges that there were 20 old trees existing in the premises which have been cut without permission.

¶14

The Tribunal, considering the grievance of the applicant, by order dated 03.10.2024 while issuing notice in the OA had also appointed a joint Committee comprising of the representative of the Member Secretary, CPCB, RO, MoEF&CC, representative of PCCF (HoFF), Mohali and District Magistrate, Jalandhar with a direction to the Committee to visit the site, ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations made by the

¶15

¶16

applicant, persons responsible for cutting the trees and also mechanism existing in the State of Punjab to prevent felling of trees in the non-forest area. In the committee, District Magistrate, Jalandhar was made the nodal agency. The joint Committee has submitted the report and findings of the Joint Committee in the report is as under:-

¶17

“ 2.1. Findings of the Joint Committee:

¶18

1. During visit, committee observed that the excavation work of the site has been completed.

¶19

2. The area is enclosed with boundary walls and buildings. There are no standing trees in this enclosed area,

¶20

3. The Provincial Division Punjab PWD B&R Br. Jalandhar, is the executing Authority at the subject site of 100 bedded Critical Care Block.

¶21

4. The site of Critical Care Block is situated at geo-coordinates (Latitude 31.32700 and Longitude 75.57405) in the Civil Hospital near Jyoti Chowk. Jalandhar. The site was carlier used as the Civil Surgeon Jalandhar Office, which has been demolished now for the construction of the Critical Care Block.

¶22

5. During the visit, the Executive Engineer was requested to submit the permission obtained regarding the cutting of trees and the Divisional Forest Officer was requested to submit the permission granted in this regard.”

¶23

The joint Committee had also visited the site and observation of the

¶24

Committee on the site visit is as follows:-

¶25

“3.0 Site Visit for gathering relevant information and interaction with the complainants:

¶26

After the site visit on dated 09.12.2024, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner Jalandhar, in his office, on dated 12-12-2024 which was attended through video conference by the other members of the joint committee. The Executive Engineer Provincial Division from the executing agency. the Divisional Forest Officer and the complainant- Mr Tejasvi Minhas were also present in this meeting.

¶27

List of officials/ complainants present during this meeting is enclosed herewith as "Annexure-III. During discussions with officials of PWD Department Jalandhar and Divisional Forest Office Jalandhar it was understood that the work of "Construction of 100 bedded Critical Care Block at Civil Surgeon Office distt. Jalandhar (Punjab) (basement+4

¶28

¶29

storey) under scheme PM-ABHIM" XEN, PWD further informed the committee that the Director Health and Family Welfare Department Punjab vide letter No. HWC 054-62 DATED 24.03.2024 has directed to remove trees from the sites of Critical Care Blocks to be constructed in various districts of Punjab. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer South cum Nodal Officer Buildings Punjab PWD BAR Patiala vide letter No. 14911503 dated 27.03.2024 directed the concerned Executive Engineers of PWD for cutting of standing trees and utility shifting for the construction of Critical Care Block in various districts of Punjab. As per the directions of Health and Family Welfare Department Punjab the case for assessment and cutting of trees at the site of Critical Care Block Civil Surgeon Office, was submitted to Divisional Forest Officer Jalandhar at Phillaur by the office of Executive Engineer Provincial Division PWD B&R Jalandhar Cantt, in reply to which the DFO vide letter No.637 dated 24.04.2024 sent the assessment of 20 number of trees and also intimated that jurisdiction for cutting and selling of these 20 trees falls under PWD only. It was also directed by the DFO to plant 5 times the number of trees as many cut for this work. XEN PWD further appraised that there is no mention of Old/ Heritage trees in the assessment report of DFO Jalandhar received vide letter No. 637 fated 24.0.2024. Accordingly, auctioning of trees was held and work of cutting of trees was allotted to Baljit Singh Contractor dated 22.07 .2024.XEN, PWD has shown geo tagged photographs of 100 no.s of trees planted in the Civil Hospital Complex Jalandhar, in the lieu of 20 nos, tree cut in the premises of Civil Surgeon Office, Jalandhar. The applicant was also heard today, the applicant raised three grievances

¶30

a ) The due procedure was not followed by PWD office for felling of trees

¶31

b) The value of green standing trees was not appropriately assessed by the Forest Department

¶32

c) XEN PWD did not respond to calls of the Applicant-Tejasvi Minhas,

¶33

The chairman of the committee- DC Jalandhar, directed the XEN PWD to submit reply for the grievance a) & c) stated above. It was directed to DFO Jalandhar to submit reply for the grievance b) stated above.

¶34

In response to the grievances of the complainant the Executive Engineer Provincial Division has submitted reply vide letter No. 2668 Dated 12.12.2024, enclosed herewith as Annexure- IV. reproduced as under:

¶35

1. Grievance of the Applicant: The due procedure was not followed by PWD office for felling of trees.

¶36

¶37

¶38

and Family Welfare Department Punjab vide letter no. IHWC 054-62 DATED 24.03.2024 directed undersigned to remove trees from the sites of Critical Care Blocks to be constructed in various districts of Punjab. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer South cum Nodal Officer Buildings Punjab PWD B&R Patiala vide letter No. 1491-1503 dated 27.03.2024 directed the concerned Executive Engineers of PWD for cutting of standing trees and utility shifting for the construction of Critical Care Block in various districts of Punjab. As per the directions of Health and Family Welfare Department Punjab the case for assessment and cutting of trees at the site of Critical Care Block Civil Surgeon Office, was submitted to Divisional Forest Officer Jalandhar at Phillaur by the office of Executive Engineer Provincial Division PWD B&R Jalandhar Cantt, in reply to which the DFO vide letter No.637 dated 24.04.2024 sent the assessment of 20 number of trees and also intimated that jurisdiction for cutting and selling of these 20 trees falls under PWD only. It was also directed by the DFO to plant 5 times the number of trees as many cut for this work. XEN PWD further appraised that there is no mention of Old/Heritage trees in the assessment report of DFO Jalandhar received vide letter No. 637 fated 24.0.2024. Accordingly, auctioning of trees was held and work of cutting of trees was allotted to Baljit Singh Contractor on dated 22.07.2024.XEN, PWD has shown geo tagged photographs of 100 no.s of trees planted in the Civil Hospital Complex Jalandhar, in the lieu of 20 nos, tree cut in the premises of Civil Surgeon Office, Jalandhar."

¶39

2. Grievance of the Applicant: XEN PIWD did not respond to calls of the Applicant

¶40

Reply by Executive Engineer PWD B&R Jalandhar office: "It is submitted that the undersigned was over busy in framing of replies and vetting, filing of the urgent high court matters in the month of September. Further, the undersigned was on leave for two days for some personal important work regarding visa appointment. The undersigned could not attend most of the calls in those days and might have missed calls from Mr. Tejasvi Minhas due to High Court matters and personal prefixed visa appointment."

¶41

In response to the grievances of the complainant the Divisional Forest Officer has submitted reply vide letter No. 11032 Dated 20.12.2024, enclosed herewith as "Annexure- V, reproduced as under

¶42

Grievance of the Applicant: The value of green standing trees was not appropriately assessed by the Forest Department. Reply by Divisional Forest Officer "It Submitted that the reserve price of standing green trees dry tress was assessed as per norms and rates fixed by Punjab state forest development corporation ltd. after taking the required measurements of the standing trees at the spot."

¶43

¶44

Further, the assessment letter of DFO Jalandhar (Letter No. 637 dated 24.04.2024, enclosed herewith as Annexure-VI, has been deliberated upon as per which the DFO office has only assessed the rates but the jurisdiction for cutting and selling of these trees fall under the preview of PWD, the translated and the original copy of the letter enclosed herewith as "Annexure- VII Further, there is no mention of heritage trees in the assessment done by the office of DFO, vide letter No.637 dated 24.04.2024.

¶45

The compensatory afforestation at the site of Civil Hospital Jalandhar has been done by the Provincial Division PWD B&R Jalandhar in compliance to the directions of DFO Jalandhar issued vide letter No. 637 Dated 24.04.2024. The PWD has planted 100 number plants at Civil Hospital complex Jalandhar in lieu of 20 trees cut at this site. The geo tagged photographs of the plantation are enclosed herewith as Annexure-VIII.

¶46

Also, it is appraised by the DFO, Jalandhar that the state has released Notification No. DFWLP-45/144/2024- O/% FINANCIAL COMM-FOREST & WILDLIFE /1/925874/2024 Chandigarh, dated: 12-09-2024-TREE PRESERVATION POLICY FOR NON FOREST GOVERNMENTAND PUBLIC LANDS-2024 enclosed herewith as 'Annexure- IX.

¶47

On the basis of site visit on dated 09.12.2024 and further deliberations on dated 12.12.2024, the joint committee is of the considerate view that:

¶48

1. The due prevailing process at the time of assessment of trees on the government land has been followed by the Divisional Forest Office Jalandhar.

¶49

2. The due prevailing process at the time of auctioning of trees on the government land has

¶50

been followed by the executing agency i.e. Punjab PWD Jalandhar and the cutting of trees has been done consequently following the directions of the Health and Family Welfare Department Punjab, the owner of the land.

¶51

3. From the assessment done by the office of Divisional Forest Officer Jalandhar, it is evident that there were no heritage trees on this site of Critical Care Block (Old Civil Surgeon Office, Jalandhar).

¶52

4.The PWD, Jalandhar shall ensure comply with CPCB guideline on dust mitigation measures in handling of construction materials and C&D waste.”

¶53

The joint Committee has specifically considered the grievance of the

¶54

Applicant about not following the due procedure in felling the trees and the observations of the joint Committee in this regard are as follows:-

¶55

¶56

“ 1. Grievance of the Applicant: The due procedure was not followed by PWD office for felling of trees.

¶57

Reply by Executive Engineer Provincial Division PWD Jalandhar office: "It is submitted that the work of "Construction of 100 bedded Critical Care Block at Civil Surgeon Office distt. Jalandhar (Punjab) (basement+ 4 storey) under scheme PM-ABHIM". The Director Health and Family Welfare Department Punjab vide letter no. IHWC 054-62 DATED 24.03.2024 directed undersigned to remove trees from the sites of Critical Care Blocks to be constructed in various districts of Punjab. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer South cum Nodal Officer Buildings Punjab PWD B&R Patiala vide letter No. 1491-1503 dated 27.03.2024 directed the concerned Executive Engineers of PWD for cutting of standing trees and utility shifting for the construction of Critical Care Block in various districts of Punjab. As per the directions of Health and Family Welfare Department Punjab the case for assessment and cutting of trees at the site of Critical Care Block Civil Surgeon Office, was submitted to Divisional Forest Officer Jalandhar at Phillaur by the office of Executive Engineer Provincial Division PWD B&R Jalandhar Cantt, in reply to which the DFO vide letter No.637 dated 24.04.2024 sent the assessment of 20 number of trees and also intimated that jurisdiction for cutting and selling of these 20 trees falls under PWD only. It was also directed by the DFO to plant 5 times the number of trees as many cut for this work. XEN PWD further appraised that there is no mention of Old/Heritage trees in the assessment report of DFO Jalandhar received vide letter No. 637 fated 24.0.2024. Accordingly, auctioning of trees was held and work of cutting of trees was allotted to Baljit Singh Contractor on dated 22.07.2024.XEN, PWD has shown geo tagged photographs of 100 no.s of trees planted in the Civil Hospital Complex Jalandhar, in the lieu of 20 nos., tree cut in the premises of Civil Surgeon Office, Jalandhar."

¶58

Joint Committee had further done the deliberation in respect of the

¶59

site visit on 09.12.2024 and recorded in the report as follows:-

¶60

“ On the basis of site visit on dated 09.12.2024 and further deliberations on dated 12.12.2024, the joint committee is of the considerate view that:

¶61

1. The due prevailing process at the time of assessment of trees on the government land has been followed by the Divisional Forest Office Jalandhar.

¶62

2. The due prevailing process at the time of auctioning of trees on the government land has been followed by the executing agency i.e.. Punjab PWD Jalandhar and the cutting of trees has been done consequently following the directions of the

¶63

¶64

Health and Family Welfare Department Punjab, the owner of the land.

¶65

¶66

4.The PWD, Jalandhar shall ensure comply with CPCB guideline on dust mitigation measures in handling of construction materials and C&D waste.”

¶67

The above report of the joint Committee clearly reveals that the assessment of the 20 number of trees was done by the DFO for cutting and selling and it was directed by the DFO to plant 5 times the number of trees which may be cut and in pursuance thereto the auction of the trees was held and work of cutting was done.

¶68

The report further states that 100 trees were planted and geotagged photographs of these 100 trees have been taken note of.

¶69

Separate report dated 05.05.2025 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, 5 and 6 disclosing the details relating to permission for felling of trees and status thereof as under:-

¶70

“8. Thereafter, Executive Engineer Provincial Division PWD B&R Jalandhar Cantt duly submitted an application to the District Forest Officer Jalandhar at Phillaur for permission for felling the trees. The DFO vide letter No.637 dated 24.04.2024 sent the assessment of 20 number of trees and also intimated that jurisdiction for cutting and selling of these 20 trees would fall under the PWD only.

¶71

A true copy of the letter dated 24.04.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 @pg 7.

¶72

9. That the permission granted by the DFO also contained a direction to plant 5 times the number of trees that were supposed to be cut.

¶73

10. That at this juncture it would be pertinent to mention is that the trees within the compound of the Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar were not old, or heritage trees as stated in the assessment report of DFO Jalandhar vide letter No. 637 fated 24.04.2024. The total number of trees that have been felled are 20 but none of them are

¶74

¶75

heritage trees. A true copy of the letter dated 24.04.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.

¶76

11. The answering respondent would like to humbly submit that the condition imposed by the DFO to plant 5 times the number of trees that have been cut has been complied with. The compensatory afforestation at the site of Civil Hospital Jalandhar has been done by the Provincial Division PWD B&R Jalandhar in compliance to the directions of DFO Jalandhar the PWD has planted 100 number plants at Civil Hospital complex Jalandhar in lieu of 20 trees cut at this site.

¶77

True copy of the pictures of the geo-tagged photos are annexed herewith as Annexure R-2 @ pgs 8 to 59.

¶78

12. The answering respondent would like to humbly submit that the trees that have been felled, have been done in conformity with the Policy formulated by the Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation notified оп 12.09.2024 known as the Tree Preservation Policy for Non-Forest Government and Public Lands2024.

¶79

A true copy of the Tree Preservation Policy 1014 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-3 @ pgs. 60 to 68.

¶80

13. The answering respondent would like to humbly submit that the reserve price of standing green trees/dry trees was assessed as per the norms and rates fixed by Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. after taking the required measurements of the standing trees at the spot.

¶81

A true copy of the Letter bearing No. 11032 dated 20.12.2024 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-4 @ pg 69.”

¶82

The above report read along with the report of the joint Committee reveals that no illegality has been committed by the concerned Respondents in felling those 20 trees. In lieu of the felling of 20 trees, plantation of 100 trees has been done.

¶83

The only issue which needs consideration in the circumstances mentioned above is the survival of the 100 trees which have been planted. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 5 and 6 has pointed out that these 100 trees have been planted in December, 2024. Hence, their survival needs to be monitored and if the trees have not survived further plantation/action is required to be taken.

¶84

¶85

In these circumstances, we direct that the joint Committee which was formed by the Tribunal by order dated 03.10.2024 will visit the site of plantation of 100 trees, ascertain the number of trees which have survived till now and will ensure plantation of tree in place of nonsurviving trees and submit the report before the Tribunal within eight weeks through email to Registrar General and if it is found necessary the matter may be listed for consideration before the Bench.

¶86

The OA is accordingly disposed of.

¶87

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶88

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶89

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶90

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶91

May 06, 2025 Original Application No. 1208/2024 A..

¶92

Tejasvi Minhas v. Public Works Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejasvi Minhas v. Public Works Division

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

Baisakhi Bhowmik and Anr. vs the Member Secretary of West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra vs Forests and Enovironment Department

Niraj Kumar vs Dhiraj Kumar

Mahant Madhu Mangal Sharan Das Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Raghunath Maity vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Rajan Kumar vs State of Bihar

Farukh Chouhan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Ravindra Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Kulwinder Singh Sandhu vs Ram Murti

Kulwinder Singh Sandhu vs Ram Murti

Kulwinder Singh Sandhu vs Ram Murti

Yashweer Singh vs Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Yashweer Singh vs Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Roshan Joshi vs State of Uttrakhand