NGT disposes pleas in Daewoo land tree-felling case

An NGT bench, comprising chairperson justice Prakash Shrivastava and expert member Dr A Senthil Vel, observed “adequate action has already been taken against illegal felling which has taken place”.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken note of the action taken by Uttar Pradesh forest authorities in connection with the illegal felling of 980 trees on land earlier leased to Daewoo Motors in Greater Noida and has issued fresh directions to prevent further violations.

In its order dated 25 November, the tribunal disposed of two connected applications after examining the fact-finding report submitted by the chief conservator of forest, western zone, Meerut, and the affidavit of the principal chief conservator of forests. (HT Archive)

In its order dated 25 November, the tribunal disposed of two connected applications after examining the fact-finding report submitted by the chief conservator of forest, western zone, Meerut, and the affidavit of the principal chief conservator of forests.

The tribunal recorded that the fact-finding report submitted by the chief conservator of forest, on May 8, 2025 disclosed that “total 980 trees were cut out of which three were Neem trees falling in prohibited specie”. The report further said that “100% volume of wood of prohibited species and 95% volume of wood from the exempted species is obtained from the illegally cut trees has been seized and it is in the custody of the forest department of the state”. The seized timber amounts to approximately 52.359 cubic metres, according to the record.

The bench also took note of the Forest Offence Reports registered on June 10 and June 25 in 2024, and of the individuals and entities identified for violations under the UP Tree Protection Act, 1976, and the UP Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. During inquiry, Waseem Khan and Mujahid Khan admitted to transporting illegally felled wood “without permission from the forest department” and said that the work was done at the behest of M/s Shakuntalam Land Craft Pvt. Ltd. The company denied responsibility in its written response dated February 19, 2025.

The tribunal further recorded that criminal complaints under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS ) Act had been filed before the additional chief judicial magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, against the company, its directors and authorised signatory, and the two workers, and that notices had been issued in the complaints.

After reviewing the material, an NGT bench, comprising chairperson justice Prakash Shrivastava and expert member Dr A Senthil Vel, observed that “adequate action has already been taken against illegal felling of trees which has taken place”.

It also noted the stand of Respondent No 6 (M/s Shakuntalam Land Craft Pvt. Ltd) that the boundary around the land “is broken at several places” which allowed unscrupulous persons to cut the trees, while matters relating to ownership and possession were under process before various authorities.

The tribunal proceeded to address the need for preventive measures, saying that “the next issue is to ensure that no further illegal felling of trees takes place in the subject land”. It noted that the divisional forest officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, had already sent a communication on February 11, 2025, to Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) to ensure security of the area.

While UPSIDA was served in the matter but was not represented, the tribunal recorded that its responsibility “to protect the land in the meanwhile is not in dispute in these proceedings”.

Accordingly, the bench directed “UPSIDA to ensure erection of proper boundary around the subject land within three months and to take all possible steps so that no illegal felling of trees takes place within the said area”.

On the issue of compensatory afforestation, the tribunal held that “it is the responsibility of concerned DFO (divisional forest officer) ensure that adequate compensatory plantation is done within one year against the trees which have been illegally cut”.

The tribunal then disposed of both original applications and directed that all pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.