Supreme Court Condemns Haryana Government for Felling 40 Trees to Build BJP Office Access Road

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Haryana government's decision to uproot 40 fully-grown trees for constructing a road leading to a newly-built BJP office in Karnal.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Thursday severely criticized the Haryana government and its urban development authority, describing their action as "pathetic" for removing 40 mature trees to construct an access road to a recently built BJP office in Karnal. The court demanded a remedial action plan and warned officials they could be "taken to task" for this environmental violation.

Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan presided over a hearing regarding a petition filed by a decorated 1971-war veteran. The petition challenged the high court's May 3 dismissal of his plea against the arbitrary allocation of a residential plot to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in Haryana and the subsequent construction of an access road that required uprooting established trees in a green area.

"It is pathetic that you uprooted fully-grown trees. Why and what happened to these trees? What is your explanation for this? Why can't you get the office of the political party shifted to some other location?" the bench directly questioned Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, representing the Haryana government.

Banerjee responded that all necessary permissions for the allotment had been obtained and environmental regulations were followed. He assured the court that replacement trees would be planted proportional to those removed.

The bench challenged Banerjee about compensation for the loss of 40 mature trees and demanded a satisfactory explanation, warning that state authorities would face consequences. "We are warning you that all of you will be taken to task for this," the justices firmly stated to Banerjee and other government representatives.

The court issued its order after hearing advocate Bhupender Pratap Singh, who represented Colonel (retired) Davinder Singh Rajput, the 79-year-old war veteran who had received the Vir Chakra for gallantry during the 1971 conflict. Rajput had purchased a 1,000-square-yard plot in Sector 9, Urban Estate, Karnal, from the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), formerly known as the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

Rajput's grievance centered on the arbitrary allocation of land adjacent to his plot in a residential colony to the state's ruling party, which he contends violated provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977 and relevant policies of the Department of Town and Country Planning and HUDA.

"The petitioner was also aggrieved by the felling of 40 trees in the green belt to make a 10m pathway through the 100m green belt in front of the house of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had paid 10 per cent preferential-location charges for the green belt facing the plot almost 36 years ago," the plea stated.

Singh informed the court that the high court had dismissed Rajput's petition and upheld the state's actions, which the petitioner claims violated his legal and fundamental rights.

"The high court did not appreciate the relevant legislative provisions and policies governing revision in layout plans of a residential plotted colony, which mandate institutional/social sites to be located on at least a 24m wide road," he argued.

The lawyer highlighted that the irregular-shaped vacant 1,550-square-yard plot adjacent to the petitioner's property, situated on a 9-meter-wide road and vacant since 1989, was designated as institutional land and allocated to the ruling party without following proper procedures.

On October 15, the Supreme Court had instructed the Haryana government to maintain status quo regarding the development activities already undertaken.

The court had summoned the chief administrator of the HSVP to appear personally with complete records and explain the circumstances surrounding the removal of over 40 trees in the name of development and what happened to those trees.

"If any further development is undertaken from now onwards, we shall take a very strict view of the matter," the court had warned.