Smt. Sunita D’souza vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater And Ors

Smt. Sunita D'Souza, resides adjoining to the property owned by the Respondent No.4, situated in CCI Colony, Unnatnagar-4, Goregaon, (w), Mumbai. There is a small structure and open space of the Respondent No.4, bearing House No.11/83, in that Colony.

Shorn of unessentials, it is the case of Smt. Sunita D' Souza, that there were about fifteen (15) trees in the barren patch in the property of Respondent No.4, which have been felled/cut down illegally without obtaining prior permission of the Tree Officer, which resulted in loss to the environment.

Smt. Sunita further alleges that merciless tree cutting carried out by the Respondent No.4 at 11/83, CCI Colony, Unnatnagr, Goregaon (west), Mumbai, has caused irretrievable damage to the environment and notwithstanding her complaints to the Tree Officer and the Police Authorities, no proper action was taken except issuance of Notice dated March 13th, 2015 by the Respondent No.1-MCGM.

The contesting Respondents have denied all material averments stated by Smt. Sunita D'Souza, except allegation that the complaint was made by her regarding tree felling by the Respondent No.4 at property No.11/83, CCI Colony, Unnatnagar-4, Goregaon (west). According to the Respondent No.4, the Application is barred by limitation, inasmuch as incidence of tree felling was known to the Applicant, which naturally occurred in the month of October, 2014. It is contended that only three (3) trees had been cut/fallen and that there were no fifteen (15) trees at the site. According to the Respondent No.4, two (2) small trees were naturally damaged due to being insect infected and had to be cut immediately, because they were dangerous to the property and, therefore, those were cut down, whereas third was old one and likely to cause more danger to his house, as well as to other properties in the surrounding area. There is no dispute about the fact that no permission was sought for felling of the trees, as required under the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975.

We have heard learned Advocates for the parties. We have perused photographs filed by the Applicant and have carefully gone through the rival pleadings.

Let it be noted that Applicant Smt. Sunita could not place on record any proof to show existence of fifteen (15) trees in the open area of the site bearing house No.C-11/83, owned by the Respondent No.4. Moreover, the area of that plot is also insufficient to accommodate such number of trees, unless we presume that the trees were standing just side by side, touching each other. It is improbable that in the Metro city, such kind of plantation would have occurred in normal course of business, particularly, when the construction activity is ongoing and neighbours are likely to obstruct activity when tree roots, deeply embedded in the earth, may hamper construction of neighbours.

Having regard to photographs and admitted pleadings of the Respondent No.4, it transpires that there were three (3) trees in the property of Respondent No.4, which were cut down without any kind of permission from the Tree Authority. It does not stand to reason that Applicant- Smt. Sunita, could have any knowledge as to whether cutting of such trees was with permission of the Tree Authority or it was being done without any such permission obtained by the Respondent No.4, at the relevant time. What appears from the record is that Applicant Smt. Sunita gathered information subsequently under the R.T.I Act, 2005 and filed Application when she received authentic information on 16th March, 2015 that site inspection was carried out by the Respondent No.1, which indicated unauthorized felling of three (3) trees without due permission. It appears that the Respondent No.1, filed prosecution against the Respondent No.4, on account of such illegal activity of tree felling. A copy of FIR is also placed on record by Respondent No.4 Mr.Pradip Shantilal Kenia on basis of complaint filed by the Tree Officer, namely Mr. Sanjay Gulabrao Navare, who is Assistant Horticulture Officer of the Respondent No.1. Obviously, it is manifest that the Application is within prescribed period of limitation, as provided under Section 14(1) read with Section 18(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and, therefore, preliminary objection raised by the Respondent No.4, is overruled, or local garden etc. as may be found feasible.

Considering fact that felling of three (3) trees without prior permission of the competent authority by the Respondent No.4, is manifest from the record, it goes without saying that the Respondent No.4, has caused environmental damage due to his such act. The loss of trees implies loss of green cover. There cannot be duality of opinion that trees and particularly, green leaves of the trees provide oxygen, which is essential for residents of the nearby locality. It is of common knowledge that loss of trees is likely to cause loss to human health due to increase in respiratory problems. Therefore, it is imperative that the Respondent No.4, shall be liable to pay certain amount for causing environmental damage and plantation of adequate number of trees. Plantation of such trees, shall be carried out by the Respondent No.1, through its Horticulture Department at proper places like Aarey Colony, which is near Goregaon locality.

Under the circumstances above and in view of discussion made above, we allow the Application partly and direct as follows:

i) Respondent No.4 Mr. Shantilal Kenia, is directed to deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- with the Respondent No.1, within four (4) weeks and out of which amount of Rs.15,000/- be incurred as expenditure for plantation of fifteen (15) trees in any suitable place, preferably in Aarey Colony, Goregaon, and rest of the amount, may be utilized for sanitary purposes, which also is part of remediation activity, failure to do so will make him liable to pay interest at rate of 12% p.a. of which recovery proceedings shall be taken up, as per Law.

ii) The Respondent No.4, shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to Applicant Smt. Sunita D'Souza and bear his own costs.

The Application is accordingly disposed of.