Uprooting 40 fully-grown trees for access road to BJP office is 'pathetic': Supreme Court to Haryana government

New Delhi: Terming it "pathetic", the Supreme Court pulled up the Haryana government and its urban development body on Wednesday for the uprooting of 40 fully-grown trees to build an accessible road to a newly-constructed BJP office in Karnal, and sought a remedial action plan, warning them of being "taken to task".

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by a 1971-war veteran, challenging the dismissal of his plea at the high court on May 3 against the arbitrary allocation of a plot in a residential area to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Haryana and later, the construction of an access road for its office by uprooting 40 fully-grown trees situated in a green area.

"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 appeared in the matter for the Haryana government.

Banerjee said the required permissions were taken for allotment and all green norms followed. He assured the court that trees will be planted in proportion to the number of trees felled.

The bench asked Banerjee who will compensate for the loss of the 40 fully-grown trees. It also asked him to come up with a good explanation, warning that the state and its instrumentalities are bound to be "taken to task".

"We are warning you that all of you will be taken to task for this," the bench told Banerjee and other lawyers appearing for different bodies of the state government.

The court passed the order after hearing advocate Bhupender Pratap Singh, who appeared in the matter for Col (retd) Davinder Singh Rajput, a 1971-war veteran.

Rajput (79) said he was wounded in the war and a decorated soldier, having been awarded the Vir Chakra for gallantry. He had purchased a plot, measuring 1,000 square yards, in sector 9, Urban Estate, Karnal from the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), then the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

Rajput said he was aggrieved by the arbitrary allotment of the land adjacent to his plot in a residential plotted colony to the ruling political party in the state in complete violation of the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977 and the relevant 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 dismissed Rajput's writ petition and upheld the arbitrary actions of the State, violating the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioner.

"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.

The lawyer pointed out that in the case at hand, the irregular-shaped vacant land ad measuring 1,550 square yards adjacent to the petitioner's plot, situated on a 9-metre-wide road and which had remained vacant since 1989, was designated as institutional and allotted to the ruling party without following any due process.

On October 15, the top court directed the Haryana government to maintain the status quo as regards the so-called development that has been undertaken.

The court had called the chief administrator of the HSVP and asked him to remain personally present before it with the entire record. It had asked the HSVP to explain the circumstances in which 40-plus trees were felled in the name of development and what was done with those trees.

"If any further development is undertaken from now onwards, we shall take a very strict view of the matter," the court had said.