Court criticizes procedural lapses in handling application under Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976, grants petitioner liberty to reapply with specific particulars.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order that denied permission to fell 10 teakwood trees on disputed land, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan, responded to a writ petition filed by Bihari Lal, the power of attorney holder for Sharda Investment Company Ltd., Calcutta.
The petitioner sought to overturn a decision dated May 31, 2025, by the respondent no.4, which rejected his application despite recommendations from the Sub Divisional Forest Officer. The application was initially submitted online on February 13, 2025, and supported by a report verifying the existence and location of the trees.
The court addressed several key issues in the judgment:
1. Lack of Hearing: The court criticized the denial of permission without providing Bihari Lal an opportunity of hearing, a breach of procedural requirements under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976. This section mandates that permission shall not be refused without affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing.
2. Pending Legal Proceedings: The rejection was based on pending appeals and disputes over land ownership. However, the court pointed out that mere pendency of appeals does not equate to an interim order or stay, and thus cannot be grounds for denial of permission.
3. Non-Partition of Land: Although the respondent argued that the non-partition of the land (minjumla plot) was a reason for denial, the court noted that this reasoning was absent from the impugned order and lacked proper inquiry.
4. Demarcation and Exclusive Possession: The court directed the competent authority to ensure proper demarcation and to consider the application afresh, allowing the petitioner to demonstrate exclusive possession of the land and the absence of legal impediments.
Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned order, granting Bihari Lal the liberty to file a fresh application with detailed particulars regarding land possession and pending legal cases. The competent authority is instructed to make decisions within prescribed timeframes and adhere to procedural fairness.
The judgment is seen as reinforcing the importance of statutory compliance and ensuring fairness in administrative decisions related to environmental and land use matters.
Bottom Line:
Permission to fell trees cannot be denied solely on account of pending appeals or unsubstantiated disputes over land ownership without providing the applicant an opportunity of hearing as mandated under the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976.
Statutory provision(s): Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 (Sections 4, 5, 10), Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (Section 30(2)).
Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2865918
