Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

Sudhakar vs Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal Thirumadam on 19 July, 2023

Author: K. Satyagopal

Bench: K. Satyagopal

Item No.7:-

                 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                      SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

                        Wednesday, the 19th day of July 2023.

                              (Through Video Conference)

                      Original Application No.76 of 2023 (SZ)


IN THE MATTER OF:


         1) Sudhakar
              S/o. Suburayan
              R/o. 7, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
              Mailam Village and Post,
              Tindivanam Taluk,
              Villupuram District.

         2) Murugan
              No.70, Pondy Road
              Mailam Village and Post,
              Tindivanam Taluk,
              Villupuram District.
                                                                 ...Applicant(s)
                                               Versus


        1) Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal Thirumadam
              Rep. by its Executive Engineer
              Mailam Murugan Koil,
              Mailam Village,
              Tindivanam,
              Villupuram District - 604 304.

        2) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests &
           Head of Forest Force
              Department of Forests,
              Panagal Maaligai,
              No.1, Jeenis Road,
              Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

        3) The District Collector
              Villupuram District
              Master Plan Complex
              Collectorate, Villupuram - 605 602.

        4) The District Forest Officer
              Villupuram Division,
              No.23A, Ranganathan Street,
              Poonthottam, Villupuram - 605 602.
                                                                ...Respondent(s)


                                         Page 1 of 4
 For Applicant(s):        Mr. Sudhakar
                         (1st Applicant - Party in Person).


For Respondent(s):       Mr. T.S. Baskaran and Mohammed Irfan Ali for R1.
                         Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2 to R4.



CORAM:


HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER



                                     ORDER

1. The grievance of the applicant is that as per the revenue records, Sy. No.17/2 of Mailam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Viluppuram District stands in the name of 'Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal' and is classified as 'Nilaviyal Thoppu' in the revenue records.

2. The complaint of the applicant is that two of the tamarind trees in the said survey number have been cut and removed by the 1st Respondent which is the Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal Thirumadam.

3. In this regard, notice was issued and a report was sought for from the District Collector - Viluppuram District.

4. The District Collector - Viluppuram (Respondent No.3) has filed an affidavit dated 18.07.2023, wherein it is stated that the Sy. No.17/2 of Mailam Village to an extent of 1.03.0 Hectares is classified as 'Dry land' which is a patta land owned by Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal. The copies of the UDR 'A' Register, Computer Chitta, 10 - I Chitta are also enclosed.

Page 2 of 4

5. It is stated that there are 25 Nos. of tamarind trees existing in the land in Sy. No.17/2 which is tamarind grove. As per the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar - Tindivanam, there were five dead tamarind trees existing in the land proposed for the construction of a commercial complex to an extent of 0.12 cents. The dead tamarind trees were cut down by the villagers for cremation with the consent of the 1st Respondent.

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent, they have no intention of cutting any trees and the construction is happening only within their premises.

7. However, it is to be noted that whenever a tree is to be cut that is standing on patta land, consent must be obtained from the Green Committee before cutting the same, if it is required.

8. In this case, the 1st Respondent has stated that it was not their intention to cut the trees but the villagers have cut and removed only the dead trees which would otherwise cause danger to the public passersby.

9. Therefore, we do not see any violation in cutting and removing the said trees. The photographs produced by the applicant also show that the tree appears to be dead.

10. While appreciating the initiative taken by the applicant to bring it to the knowledge of this Tribunal about the cutting of the trees, he would continue his activity of saving trees and advising the people Page 3 of 4 not to cut the trees without the consent of the Green Committee. He can also encourage the people to plant trees to develop the greenbelt in his area.

11. As the 1st Respondent is the owner of the land and the trees which are dead are said to be cut, we also direct them to plant saplings at the ratio of 1 : 10 inside their premises as well as outside area and safeguard the same till they are grown.

12. With the above direction, this Original Application [O.A. No.76 of 2023 (SZ)] is closed.

Sd/-

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-

Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O. A. No.76/2023 (SZ) 19th July 2023. Mn.

Page 4 of 4