S. Savithri vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the respondents.

The applicant, a resident of Besant Nagar, Chennai who is also a member of the 5th respondent Society, has filed this application seeking for a direction against respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent for cutting the trees standing in the park area in Besant Nagar, Chennai and issue a direction to preserve the trees and shrubs which are several years old.

According to the applicant, the 5th respondent Society is maintaining a park in Besant Nagar. There are a number of trees in the park and without informing the members of the Society, trees were cut. The applicant has further stated that the trees which were cut by the 5th respondent Society are as old as 50 years and the newspaper dated 11.10.2015 has also reported on the cutting of trees and falling of ecological conditions prevailing in the park area.

Admittedly, the park area belongs to the 5th respondent Society and a temple is situated behind the park. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the 5th respondent that totally 8 trees stood in the park out of which one was uprooted since it was protruding into the temple compound . Apart from that, the major branches of the remaining 7 trees were virtually cut by the 5th respondent Society in the name of pruning. The learned counsel also produced various photographs published in ''The Hindu'' newspaper to show that the trees which were stated to have been pruned by the 5th respondent have in fact been cut.

The 5th respondent in the reply has stated that the Government Officials' Co-operative Society came into existence on 16.2.1966 with an objective of providing residential flats to the retired government employees who were not in a position to construct houses of their own. As per the norms of Co-operative Societies, it is mandatory to retain an open area to be earmarked as park. The said park owned and maintained by the 5th respondent is for the benefit of its members and their families.

It is stated that on 3rd December, 2014 the President of the 5th respondent Society had convened a meeting for the purpose of cleaning up and beautification of the then vandalized park and requested the members to give an action plan. It was decided to develop a park as ''Senior Citizens'Park'' and the park shall situate in a peaceful location with trees, green lawns and flower beds.

The 5th respondent has stated that the newspaper has given one sided version and really what was done in respect of the trees is for the benefit of the members by pruning the same so that the members can utilise the park to the maximum possible extent. It is stated that the trees were infested with vermin and had to be pruned to make the park clean. According to the 5th respondent, except one tree no other tree was cut. Even that tree has sprung to life now as it was not cut from the root. It is stated that prior to the pruning of the five trees two trees located near the stage in the park were pruned and these trees have now gotten a very healthy and lustrous growth of fresh shoots and the growth is orderly and not haphazard. Ultimately, the 5th respondent has denied the averments made by the applicant about cutting of the trees.

The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has filed a report dated 22.1.2016 submitted by Dr. D. Narasimhan, Associate Professor, Centre for Floristic Research, Department of Botany, Madras Christian College, Tambaram, Chennai. In the said report, the Expert has stated that at the request of the 5th respondent he visited the park after reading the report of the Advocate Commissioner Mr.K.R. Harin. He has further stated that in his opinion trees such as Gulmohr (Delonix regia) are not suitable for coastal areas due to its shallow root system and large heavy canopy which makes these trees easy victims of cyclones and according to him the pruning of such trees is a common practice, especially in urban areas. According to him, the pruning of trees were carried out in the park by the 5th respondent based on the said principle. He has also further stated that the trees which were pruned will attain a considerable crown in another 2 to 3 months and they are not a major environmental concern. He has further stated that one neem tree on the eastern side is infected at the base. He has observed that the original character of the above tree was very poor and the tree appears to be sick and he suspects that the said tree is suffering from an infection and as such survival of the above tree for a long period is doubtful and therefore he opined that one neem tree on the eastern side must be completely removed and replaced by a new one. He has also stated that on the western side he observed a cut stump which belongs to another neem tree. It is essential to remove the cut stump from that area as it has damaged the temple wall.

However, in the concluding remark of his report he has stated that the only issue in the whole pruning exercise was that there is an excess pruning of the branches. He has also stated that this could have been avoided and either a horticulturist or a botanist ought to have been consulted to prune these trees combining safety and aesthetics.

We appointed Mr. K.R. Harin, Advocate of this Tribunal to inspect the park after giving notice to the parties and file his report. The learned Advocate Commissioner in his report dated 8.1.2016 has stated that on the eastern side of the park there are four trees out of which one is on the right side of the entrance and other three trees are standing on the left side of the entrance. He has stated that out of the total number of eight trees there are three neem trees. The learned Advocate Commissioner has assigned numbers to each tree. The trunk of Tree No.1 (neem tree) is approximately 14 feet tall with a girth of the trunk being 4 feet. Two branches of the tree are branching off from the trunk at approximately 9 and 12 feet from the ground level and both the said branches were cut off very close to the trunk. In respect of Tree No.2 (neem tree) it is stated that the trunk height is approximately 11.9 feet from the ground level with the girth of the trunk being 3.8 feet with four main branches. The learned Advocate Commissioner has stated that all the four main branches have been totally cut off. Regarding Tree No.6 (neem tree) the learned Advocate Commissioner has stated that the trunk of the same is approximately 8 feet from the ground level with three branches, the girth of the trunk being 4 feet. The learned Advocate Commissioner has stated that all the three branches have been cut approximately 2.5 feet, 8 feet and 10 feet, respectively from the point where it is branching off from the trunk. However, learned Advocate Commissioner has stated that new shoots of leaves were seen on edges of the three branches at the point where they were cut.

The learned Advocate Commissioner has stated that apart from the said three neem trees, there are three gulmohar trees which are not native species. Regarding Tree No.3 (Gulmohar) the trunk of which is approximately 14 feet from the ground level where it is cut off, the girth of the trunk is approximately 2.4 feet. However, he has stated that new leaves were seen on the edges. Regarding Tree No.4 (Gulmohar) the trunk of the same is approximately 14 feet from the ground level, where it is branching into two, the girth of the trunk is approximately 2.5 feet, left branch is approximately 10 feet from the trunk where it is cut off and the right branch is approximately 4 feet from the trunk where it is cut off. Regarding Tree No.5 (Gulmohar) the trunk of the tree is stated to be approximately 6.5 feet from the ground level, left primary branch has four tertiary branches and all the four tertiary branches were cut off to the extent of 3 to 4 feet from the point of its branching off from the left primary branch. The learned Advocate Commissioner has also stated that the central primary branch has two branches, left side branch has three tertiary branches which are all totally cut off. Right primary branch is approximately 2 feet from the branch where it is branching into four tertiary branches and all the four tertiary branches have been cut close to where it is branching off from the primary branch.

According to the learned Advocate Commissioner, apart from the above neem and gulmohar trees, there is one Pipal tree viz., Tree No.7 the age of which would be approximately 10 years which is standing opposite to the entrance and close to the compound wall. The learned Advocate Commissioner has stated that in so far as the said pipal tree is concerned it was not cut or pruned. There is one another neem tree (Tree No.8) and the stump portion of the said tree is seen approximately 9 to 16 inches from the ground level. It is abutting the compound wall with a gap of 6 inches from the compound wall.

In addition to the Expert Opinion as well as the learned Advocate Commissioner's Report, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent requested the expert to be present in the Tribunal. Accordingly, Dr. D. Narasimhan who was present before this Tribunal on 5th February, 2016 made some statements. When enquired about the difference between pruning and cutting of trees, he responded by saying that it can be utmost excessive pruning and cannot be said to be cutting of trees in the instant case. He also stated that in respect of one neem tree he suspects that there was some infection. However, he admitted that one neem tree has been uprooted without permission from the authorities concerned. He has also stated that in so far as the gulmohar trees they are to be properly maintained and excessive branches are to be cut periodically.

Before adverting to the rival contention it is necessary to explain about pruning. Pruning is stated to be a regular part of plant maintenance involving selective removal of specific plant parts and article by Virginia Cooperative Extension, publication 430-455 on the head "A Guide to successful Pruning" - Pruning Basics and Tools "states pruning wounds plants, but plants respond differently to wounding as compared to animals. In plants, damaged areas are covered by Callus tissue to close the wounds: animals' wound heal, plant wounds' seal. It is also stated in the publication that "c urrent pruning recommendations, advise against pruning branches flush to the trunk, flush cutting is harmful in several ways: it damages bark as pruning tools rub against the trunk, it removes the branch collar and goes behind the branch bark ridge". It goes on to say "the branch collar is the swollen area of trunk tissue that forms around the base of the branch. If you prune away the branch collar, you remove not only branch wood, but also trunk wood, opening the plant to more extensive decay". It is stated that, "the best pruning cut is made outside the branch collar, at a 45 to 60 degree angle to the branch bark ridge".

Having taken note of the above factual matrix and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the respondents, particularly Mr.P. Velmurugan, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that what is alleged to have been done as prunning by the 5th respondent cannot be accepted at all by any sense of imagination. The photographs are the standing testimony to arrive at a conclusion that it is not merely an excessive pruning but a brutal attack on the voiceless trees. One cannot accept the contention that for the benefit of residents of the cooperative society the branches were to be cut completely which is not at all rationale. If the Society takes the ground that excessive branches of trees were inconvenient for walking, one should be ashamed of the same. We are conscious of the fact that Mr. P. Velmurugan, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would not take such stand.

Be that as it may, the records abundantly speak about the factual evidence that what is done in this case is not merely a routine pruning of branches but an attempt made to cut the trees. It may be true, in course of time these trees may grow, but we do not know how many years it will take, especially in the context of the stand taken by the applicant that these trees are 50 years old. However, the learned Advocate Commissioner has fairly stated that these trees are more than 10 years old. It is an admitted fact that in a civil society the preservation of trees must form part of the human life, especially in the fast development of urbanization. In the City of Chennai, we have trees only in a few places like T.Nagar, Besant Nagar, Adyar and other places. In these places, if the people are allowed to do this sort of activities, it would amount to allowing the nature to be destroyed. The contention raised by the 5th respondent that prunning should be done periodically cannot be disputed at all provided it is really pruning . In the name of pruning no body, with an intention of putting an end to its life shall be permitted to touch the trees. In such view of matter, we have no hesitation to conclude that what is done by the 5th respondent above is cutting of trees and they have to be imposed with necessary obligation to recoupe.

Accordingly, we dispose of the application with following directions:

The 5th respondent shall plant 70 trees of native species in the entire stretch of Besant Nagar which is to be identified by the 4th respondent viz., Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai

The Corporation of Chennai shall consult the Forest Department to decide about the nature of trees to be planted by the 5th respondent which shall take the follow up action.

The 5th respondent shall ensure that the said trees which may be planted are maintained at least for a minimum of 5 years or till the plants are grown.

In addition to the above, we direct the 5th respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards ''Environment Relief Fund'' as per the provisions of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and the said amount shall be deposited in the nominated bank.

The 5th respondent shall pay the Advocate Commissioner Fee of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only)

The 5th respondent shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the applicant.

We place on record our deep sense of appreciation for the steps and assistance rendered to the Tribunal by Mr. K.R. Harin, the Advocate Commissioner.

Application stands disposed in the above terms.