High Court notice to Punjab on fresh PIL over mass tree felling

Petitioner cites over 200 trees cut on Panchayat land, seeks penalties and reforestation drive

September 22, 2025 05:51 PM IST

3 min read

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry sought the state’s reply after hearing arguments by Advocate Balbir Singh Sewak, appearing for the petitioner.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday issued notice to the Punjab government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging the large-scale illegal felling of trees and unauthorized construction on Panchayat land in a Mohali village. The petition, filed by Surjit Singh, a 60-year-old agriculturist from Village Giddarpur, comes after he earlier moved the High Court in March 2025 over the same issue and even filed a contempt plea in July when directions were not complied with. Both petitions, he argues, resulted in no meaningful action, underlining what he describes as a “pattern of apathy” on the part of state and local authorities.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry sought the state’s reply after hearing arguments by Advocate Balbir Singh Sewak, appearing for the petitioner. The PIL, registered under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, points to official inaction despite repeated complaints and judicial directions, even as the village continues to lose green cover critical to its ecology and agrarian economy.

The case names seven respondents, including the State of Punjab through the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), the District Development and Panchayat Officer, the District Forest Officer, the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Gram Panchayat of Giddarpur through its Sarpanch, the Incharge of Police Post Saneta, and Ujagar Singh, a villager identified as the main offender.

According to the petition, the disputed land was partitioned in April 2021, with two-thirds allotted to the Animal Husbandry Department and one-third to the Gram Panchayat. On November 5, 2024, the petitioner alleges, Respondent No. 7 (Ujagar Singh), in collusion with Panchayat members, cut down more than 200 mature trees, some over 15 years old, before starting construction work on the Panchayat’s share of the land.

Singh contends the act not only destroyed vital tree cover but also violated multiple environmental statutes, causing loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, and disruption to local wildlife. Despite the Gram Panchayat Administrator issuing a notice to halt construction on November 12, 2024, and subsequent complaints made to police and forest officials, no meaningful action followed, the PIL claims.

The petition traces a long paper trail: a complaint filed with the Saneta Police Post on November 15, 2024, representations to authorities in December 2024, and legal proceedings earlier this year. In March 2025, the High Court had already directed the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, to consider Singh’s legal notice. A speaking order passed in July acknowledged the felling of 115 trees and directed a damage assessment by the Forest Range Officer. However, Singh said that “no assessment has been done or action initiated” to date.

Frustrated with the continued inaction, Singh filed a contempt petition in July, which was disposed of with liberty to challenge the speaking order. He followed up with another legal notice to the District Forest Officer in August before approaching the court again through the present PIL.

Story continues below this ad

The petition invokes Supreme Court directions in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, which mandate a minimum penalty of Rs 1 lakh per illegally felled tree and compensatory as well as penal plantations at ten times the number of trees lost.

By that benchmark, even the 116 trees acknowledged in official records would require 2,320 saplings of indigenous species to be planted and maintained at the expense of those responsible.

From the homepage