'Shocking State of Affairs' Says SC After Being Told 454 Trees Cut Overnight in Taj Trapezium Zone

New Delhi: Terming the overnight felling of 454 trees in Mathura as a "shocking state of affairs", the Supreme Court on Friday banned tree cutting even with the prior permission between 6pm and 8am the next day in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih further issued a contempt notice to a private party, Dalmia Farms, which felled 422 trees on a private land besides cutting down 32 trees of the protected forest during the intervening night of September 18 and 19.

"We have perused the report of the CEC (central empowered committee), which discloses shocking state of affairs that 454 trees were illegally felled on the night of September 18-19 out of which 422 were on private land and remaining trees were part of protected forest," the bench said, adding that prima facie contempt has been committed by the private party.

The TTZ, an area of 10,400 square-kilometre approximately, spreads across Agra, Firozabad, Mathura, Hathras, and Etah districts in UP and Bharatpur District in Rajasthan.

The top court as a result asked the UP government to consider amending the provision of Uttar Pradesh Tree Protection Act of 1976 to enhance the penalty provision for tree felling and for compounding of offences in lieu of penalty for it to exert a deterrent effect.

It sought the response of owners of the private land by December 16.

While ordering the superintendent of police of Mathura District to direct the SHO concerned to visit the site and confiscate the timber as per law and ensure no further tree felling, the top court said no construction should be done in the meantime and a status quo be maintained at the site.

During the hearing, senior advocate A D N Rao, who has been appointed as amicus curiae in the matter said the CEC visited the site and found non-compliance of a May 8, 2015 order, which banned tree felling in TTZ zone without prior court permission.

While submitting that 454 trees were felled for the construction of a colony, Rao sought court's intervention to restrain any further colonisation in the TTZ area.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, representing the UP government, said action had been initiated against the owners of the private land for the tree felling under the UP Trees Act of 1976, the Environment Protection Act, the Forest Act and the Wildlife Protection Act.

She urged the court to direct for enhancing the penalty for tree felling in the TTZ area to deter people from cutting trees illegally.

"The penalty should have some deterrent effect on those trying to fell the trees at least in TTZ area," she submitted.

The top court notably underlined, "Our attention has been brought to UP Protection of Trees Act of 1976. We find that the provision regarding penalty in Sections 10 and 15 are not adequate to deter illegal felling of trees." Observing the amount on which the offences under the Act could be compounded was very low, the top court directed the state government to look into amending the provision and enhance the penalty.

The case pertained to a plea over environmental concerns and preservation of historical monuments, including the UNESCO World Heritage Site The Taj Mahal, and its surrounding areas.