Why Rohtak’s trees matter to all of us
When I read the report that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has restrained the state from cutting more trees on a 38-acre green patch in Rohtak, one line stuck with me: “Don’t you want your grandchildren to survive?” The story—reported in The Tribune and picked up by other outlets—describes a naturally grown patch that, over two decades, became a dense stand of trees now threatened by plans for a commercial Sector 6 development High Court halts felling in Rohtak green patch - The Tribune.
I write as someone who has worried for years about how courts, planners and citizens handle the invisible value of urban nature. This Rohtak case brings into focus legal gaps, ecological loss, and a bigger question: how should cities balance short-term commercial gains against long-term climate and health benefits?
What happened (brief background)
- Land acquired in 2002 for a planned sector remained unused and, over two decades, a naturally regenerated forest formed on roughly 38 acres. Reporters say the area now hosts some 12,000 trees. Authorities began felling in January and the matter reached the High Court via public interest litigation; the court has ordered a temporary restraint on further cutting pending production of permissions and replies Hindustan Times summary.
- Petitioners argued the patch qualifies as “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and under a recent state notification, which would require central clearance even for limited felling. The Bench also asked whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was the appropriate forum for environmental adjudication, underscoring a procedural jurisdictional question discussed in court reports.
The key legal issues
- Forest (Conservation) Act compliance: If a patch qualifies as forest (including "deemed" or naturally regenerated forest), conversion or felling ordinarily requires Centre’s approval. Cutting without that nod risks statutory violation and environmental oversight bypass.
- Forum-shopping and jurisdiction: Courts are rightly asking whether environmental questions should be routed first to the NGT, which has technical benches and a specialized mandate, or whether writ jurisdiction (Article 226) before the High Court is appropriate in a PIL seeking immediate relief.
- Transparency and permissions: The court’s direction to the state to place all permissions on record is a salutary check. Environmental governance must be documentary and auditable; ad hoc removals without records erode trust.
Environmental impacts we tend to underestimate
A patch like Rohtak’s is not just “trees on paper.” Losing such an urban forest means:
- Microclimate loss and higher local temperatures (urban heat island effects).
- Reduced air filtration and worse local air quality—relevant to public health in densely populated towns.
- Loss of biodiversity: even small urban forests host birds, insects and soil life that underpin ecosystem services.
- Stormwater absorption and reduced flood risk; mature trees are far more effective than saplings planted elsewhere as compensation.
Compensatory afforestation is sometimes offered as a fix, but planting numbers don’t instantly return the lost ecological complexity, shade, or carbon sequestration of 20-year growth.
Local reactions and social context
Citizens and environmental groups have shown visible anger and mobilised petitions and photographs documenting felling. At the same time, officials cite development needs—jobs, commerce, and infrastructure. That tension is familiar: short-term economic metrics versus long-term public goods that seldom appear on a balance sheet.
Broader implications for urban development and the judiciary’s role
This dispute is a case study in three systemic points:
- Urban planning must map and protect naturally regenerated green patches the way we map roads and utilities. Too often, these pockets live in legal limbo.
- Courts are increasingly the safety valve when executive processes fail. The High Court’s intervention shows judicial willingness to ask uncomfortable moral questions, but there is also a need for clear forum demarcation between High Courts and the NGT to avoid delays or duplication.
- Development regimes that treat trees as disposable externalities will store up public-health and climate costs for future generations.
I have written earlier about the interplay between courts and urban governance, urging systemic enforcement rather than episodic rescue interventions—see my reflection on judicial oversight and urban projects Need for Punishing Colluding Babus.
Practical steps for citizens and policymakers
For citizens:
- Map and document local green patches (photos, GPS points) and bring early public-interest petitions if required.
- Engage municipal processes: insist that development proposals include transparent tree-impact assessments and relocation/mitigation plans.
For policymakers and administrators:
- Create a mandatory register of "urban natural forests" and designate heritage or protected status for mature urban patches.
- Require independent ecological audits before any felling; make central FCA compliance reports publicly available.
- Strengthen compensatory afforestation quality standards (not just counts): ensure species mix, survival guarantees and local ecological fit.
- Clarify procedural routes: streamline whether the NGT or High Courts should be approached for different categories of relief and ensure inter-forum coordination.
Final thought
Cities will keep vying for commercial space, but a pattern of sacrificing mature urban green cover for short-term gains is neither smart nor sustainable. The Rohtak order is a reminder: ecosystems are intergenerational infrastructure. Courts can and should pause irreversible action; citizens and planners must then choose policies that do more than paper over the loss with sapling counts.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Any questions / doubts / clarifications regarding this blog? Just ask (by typing or talking) my Virtual Avatar on the website embedded below. Then "Share" that to your friend on WhatsApp.
Get correct answer to any question asked by Shri Amitabh Bachchan on Kaun Banega Crorepati, faster than any contestant
Hello Candidates :
- For UPSC – IAS – IPS – IFS etc., exams, you must prepare to answer, essay type questions which test your General Knowledge / Sensitivity of current events
- If you have read this blog carefully , you should be able to answer the following question:
- Need help ? No problem . Following are two AI AGENTS where we have PRE-LOADED this question in their respective Question Boxes . All that you have to do is just click SUBMIT
- www.HemenParekh.ai { a SLM , powered by my own Digital Content of more than 50,000 + documents, written by me over past 60 years of my professional career }
- www.IndiaAGI.ai { a consortium of 3 LLMs which debate and deliver a CONSENSUS answer – and each gives its own answer as well ! }
- It is up to you to decide which answer is more comprehensive / nuanced ( For sheer amazement, click both SUBMIT buttons quickly, one after another ) Then share any answer with yourself / your friends ( using WhatsApp / Email ). Nothing stops you from submitting ( just copy / paste from your resource ), all those questions from last year’s UPSC exam paper as well !
- May be there are other online resources which too provide you answers to UPSC “ General Knowledge “ questions but only I provide you in 26 languages !
No comments:
Post a Comment