Punjab and Haryana High Court: In asuo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) initiated by the Court regarding felling of trees by DLF Ltd. for its project over 40 acres of land in Phase 5, Gurugram, the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and Sanjiv Berry, J., disposed of the PIL, holding that since none of the khasras, regarding which DLF was permitted to cut trees, fell within the Aravalli Hills area, it was not appropriate to proceed in the matter.
Background
On 19-06-2025, based on a news item published in “The Tribune”, the Court directed the impleadment of DLF and Municipal Corporation of Gurugram, as respondents apart from the State. The State counsel was directed to inform the Municipal Corporation in this regard and file a status report within a week. The Court also issued notice to all the parties and sought their response.
In the status report filed by Deputy Conservator of Forest (‘DCF’) via an affidavit, DLF was permitted to cut trees in respect of 58 Khasras of Village Wazirabad vide order dated 06-06-2025. The parcel of land on which permission for cutting of trees was granted was the private land duly owned and possessed by DLF. The land did not fall in any protected forest or reserved forest. In fact, it was not covered within the definition of ‘forest’ under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The affidavit also averred that the land had not been notified under Aravalli Plantation as the Khasras were not covered under ‘Gair Mumkin Pahar’ category in respect of which the Aravalli Notification was issued. Neither was the land covered under any specific orders issued under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (‘PLP Act’).
As per the DCF, DLF had applied for permission to cut trees standing on their land where the proposed project had to be developed. On receipt of the applications, directions were given to the field staff to carry out necessary inspections. A report was submitted after due verification of the land, including verification of the GPS coordinates, land ownership, number of trees, species of the trees (which were mostly Prosopis Juliflora/Musket/Kabulikar), their distance from national park/reserved area, etc. The report was presented before the Conservator of Forest, who held that the land did not fall within the forest area or Aravalli Hills and granted the requisite permission. Thus, DLF was permitted to cut trees after following the due process of law laid down in Section 4 (c) of the PLP Act.
Furthermore, the said permission granted for felling of trees was conditional as DLF had to plant 10 times the number of trees cut during this monsoon season (‘planting condition’). This condition was being monitored by the Forest Department.
DLF contended that they had owned the land since 1989 and provided various orders/ permissions concerning felling of trees from the Khasras concerned, along with the license granted in 1995-96 for developing and constructing the project in question. DLF further contended that trees were being cut while adhering to all the environmental safeguards and conditions.
Analysis
In the absence of any material to the contrary, the Court held that it had to rely upon the DCF’s affidavit. Since none of the khasras, regarding which DLF was permitted to cut trees, fell within the Aravalli Hills area, the Court did not deem it appropriate to proceed in the matter.
The Court directed DLF to ensure that they followed all the terms and conditions subject to which permissions to cut trees were granted, especially the planting condition. The State and interveners had the liberty to revisit this Court by filing an application for revival of the present PIL in case of failure by DLF in planting trees. Furthermore, State functionaries were directed to ensure that the planting condition was fulfilled within proximity of the project area so that residents benefited from clean and fresh air.
Accordingly, the PIL was disposed of.
[Court on its own motion v. State of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition PIL No. 146 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 17-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi (Applicant in person), Abhayjeet Singh Rao, Ekakshra Mahajan, and Tejas Ahlawat
For the respondent: Additional Advocate General of Haryana Ankur Mittal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General of Haryana Pradeep P. Chahar, Deputy Advocate General of Haryana Saurabh Mago, Assistant Advocate General of Haryana Karan Jindal, Kushaldeep Kaur, Deepak Balyan, Sharad Aggarwal, Senior Advocate R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal, Udit Garg, Radhika Mehta, and Shifali Goyal
