New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday revealed skepticism at the view of the committee itself was established when the panel was conveyed that expanding the definition of ‘forest’ to ‘plant non-notification trees’ would only prevent planting road trees on public land.
Replies by the Committee submitted in the application by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) who are looking for court licenses for tree logging for the construction of phase IV of the Metro Railway project, which will be 20 km long, from Aerocabad.
About 10,000 trees must be accessed for the project.
Judge L Judge Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna, who examined the DMRC request, said the attitude taken by the committee was not acceptable.
“We will not accept that all trees planted are not forests.
It will cause chaos.
Who will decide whether the tree is planted one or planted naturally?” It asked.
Advocacy D n Rao, appearing for the committee, argues that the panel took a stand on the basis of the previous court ruling in 1996 that trees planted in the project area could not be labeled as forests.
“The Guidelines of Indian Governments specifically exclude all plantations appointed outside forests that are notified / forest recordings from the PurView of Forest Law (Conservation), 1980.
Only land with natural trees outside the forest that is notified / treated as a treated forest,” The committee said.
“Therefore it was recommended for the consideration of this court that the Petitioner’s prayer to declare that 5.34 KM Alarming Jalan No.
26 between Vikaspuri to Peeragarhi, 1288,973 SQM Land in Najafgarh drain, 16097.75 square meters in Mangolpuri and 55.78 square meters Krishna Park is Untrewed areas are permitted, subject to the condition that the DMRC will fall in a tree only after obtaining permission under the preservation of the Delhi Act tree, 1994 of the authority concerned and after complying with the requirements related to the agreement, including the planting of the compensation, including the agreement, including this agreement, including Planting compensation.
10 times the number of trees close to the site from the tree where the tree is cut down, “said the committee.
The proceedings of the court also witnessed the Delhi government and the center against each other fiercely with problems with Delhi’s advice argued that the area was part of the forest and notification of showcuse was issued for tree logging.
Lawyers General accused Delhi blocking the Metro project, which is the people’s lifeline.
Shroff also filed objections to Mehta appearing for DMRC, saying that there was a conflict of interest between the center and DMRC.
Mehta, also appeared for the Ministry of Environment, told the bench that the center did not oppose projects such as the Delhi government.
“If my appearance is the problem, then some other advice can arise in this case but the project should not be affected.
The objection of my appearance seems to be the best place for Delhi to reject the Metro project,” said Mehta.
The view of the Supreme Court Panel Nixes that the roadside tree is ‘not a forest’
