Calling it "pathetic", the Supreme Court on Thursday criticised the Haryana government and its urban development body for removing 40 fully-grown trees to construct a road leading to a new BJP office, which was recently built, in Karnal. The court asked them to submit a remedial plan and warned that they could be "taken to task".
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan was hearing a plea filed by a 1971-war veteran. He had challenged the high court’s May 3 order that dismissed his petition against the allotment of a plot in a residential area to the BJP and the construction of a road to its office by removing 40 trees from a green belt.
"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 asked Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, who represented the Haryana government in the case.
Banerjee stated that all permissions needed were taken for the allotment, and green norms were followed. He told the court that new trees would be planted to make up for the ones that were cut.
The bench then asked Banerjee who would make up for the loss of 40 fully-grown trees. It told him to come back with a proper explanation and warned that the state and its agencies would be "taken to task" for this.
"We are warning you that all of you will be taken to task for this," the bench warned Banerjee and other lawyers appearing for different bodies of the state government.
The court passed the order after hearing advocate Bhupender Pratap Singh, who represented Col (retd) Davinder Singh Rajput, a 1971-war veteran.
Rajput (79) told the court that he was injured in the war and awarded the Vir Chakra for bravery. He said he had bought a 1,000-square-yard plot in Sector 9, Urban Estate, Karnal, from the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), earlier known as HUDA.
He said he was upset about the arbitrary allotment of the land next to his plot in a residential colony to the ruling party, which he said violated the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977, and other policies of the Department of Town and Country Planning and the 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 said.
Singh told the bench that the high court rejected Rajput’s plea and supported the actions of the state, which he argued violated the petitioner’s 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 submitted.
On October 15, the Supreme Court ordered the Haryana government to maintain status quo on the construction work.
The court had called the HSVP chief administrator and asked him to appear before the court with the full record. It had also asked HSVP to explain why more than 40 trees were cut for development and what happened to those trees.
"If any further development is undertaken from now onwards, we shall take a very strict view," the court had warned.
Follow us
