Illegal tree felling in an area of 10,400 square kilometres around the Taj Mahal, known as the Taj Trapezium zone, will attract hefty fines of up to ₹25,000 per tree, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday, acting on a recommendation by an expert panel proposing harsh measures to curb illegal cutting of trees in districts around the iconic monument as the existing law failed to provide a deterrent.
Also Read: ‘Unfeasible’: SC on national directives on mob lynching
The expert panel –– Central Empowered Committee (CEC) –– assisting the court on environment issues, had informed the court about the reckless felling of 7,020 trees from 2015 till September 2024 (when the report was filed) as a cause of concern. To remedy this situation, the CEC recommended imposing hefty fines. Although, illegal felling of trees is punishable under the UP Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, it provides for a punishment of either six months imprisonment or a fine of ₹1,000 or both.
Also Read: Supreme Court agrees to hear plea on ‘passive euthanasia’ for rabies patients
The CEC proposed hike in penalty in three categories –– ₹5,000 per tree for any private exempted tree cut by farmer; ₹10,000 per tree for restricted species of private trees by any person; and ₹25,000 for illegal felling of tree covered under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. To be sure, the UP Act of 1976 provides a procedure for seeking permission to cut trees. The fines would apply for those acts of tree felling carried out without getting permission from the divisional forest officer (DFO).
Also Read: ‘Don’t erase, reload data’: Supreme Court to EC on plea seeking verification of EVMs
Accepting the recommendation of CEC, a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said, “Cases in which there is felling of 100 or more trees, the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) will issue notice to the person responsible for illegal felling of trees and show cause why penalty be not imposed. After giving an opportunity of hearing, the penalty shall be imposed as proposed by CEC.” In the event the number of trees felled are between 50 to 100, the TTZ will be free to straightaway proceed with penalty, the court added.
The bench directed the TTZ to implement these recommendations by the end of March. The court further ordered that any person affected by the amount of penalty has to first approach the top court by filing an application. This was to ensure that the order of TTZ is not interfered with by the courts below.
The bench said that saving trees is the constitutional duty of the state. “It is the constitutional duty of all public authorities to see that trees are saved,” the bench observed as it heard an application moved by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for felling of trees in TTZ for a highway project. Although, NHAI had initially sought permission to chop down over 800 trees, the CEC,upon examination found that only 650 trees require to be cut while 109 can be translocated on the roadside falling in TTZ.
Noticing the number of trees saved in the process, the court reminded NHAI of the Fundamental Duty under Article 51A of the Constitution requiring the state and its organs to “protect and improve the natural environment including forests, etc”.
The court observed, “While applying for permission (to fell trees), the authorities should be meticulous while moving an application before the court.” The court further directed NHAI to comply with the condition for undertaking compensatory afforestation of planting 9000 trees. The CEC was asked to inspect the same and file a report of compliance following which actual permission to fell trees will be granted, the court said.
The CEC report, while proposing effective implementation of the 1976 Act, proposed that for every illegal action of tree felling, ten times the trees cut should be planted. This recommendation was also accepted by the court. The CEC said, “Some people illegally remove the trees owned by them when they pose a danger to their life and property while some people also fell trees for non-genuine vested interests. To discourage these practices and compensate for the tree loss, some strict punitive actions are required.”
It recommended, “For illegal felling offense as covered in IFA, 1927, ₹25,000 per tree may be recovered by the DFO as compounding fees, timber may be seized in favour of department, and amount for tree guard-protected plantation of trees ten times the number of trees illegally felled with 5 years maintenance to be deposited with Forest department.”
For the other two sets of illegal tree felling it said, “For illegal felling of private trees of restricted species by any person and exempted species by any person other than farmer, ₹10,000 per tree may be recovered by the DFO as compounding fees, timber may be seized in favour of department and amount for block plantation of trees ten times the number of trees illegally felled with 5 years maintenance be deposited with the Forest department.”
As regards illegal felling of private trees of exempted species by farmers, it proposed ₹5,000 per tree as compounding fees and suggested the timber to be handed back to the farmer, who will be exempt from the condition to plant equal or more number of trees to compensate for the loss to the environment.
The TTZ spread across an area of 10,400 sq. km comprises seven districts of Agra, Mathura, Firozabad, Aligarh, Hathras, and Etah of Uttar Pradesh, and Bharatpur district in Rajasthan. The CEC documented 1,030 cases of illegal felling of over 7,000 trees with the majority being felled in Agra (548), followed by Mathura (235) and Firozabad (159). No case was reported from Hathras and Bharatpur, while the remaining 88 cases were reported from Etah.
