Central Ridge is the lungs of Delhi, structures without protection have to go: HC

Observing that 63 is a huge number, Justice Singh said to the Delhi government’s counsel, advocate Sameer Vashisht, appearing in the matter, “These are the lungs of Delhi. You will file an affidavit indicating what are the 63 structures and what is the protection available to each. If there is no protection the structure has to go”.

During the previous hearing, the HC had raised concerns about “concretisation in the central ridge”. On Monday, it was informed by the DCF West that there were “14 truckloads of construction and demolition material and 10 truckloads of municipal solid waste (MSW) material” that have been removed from the central ridge over the last two months.

Stating that this was “unacceptable”, the HC said, “In the first instance, there should not have been any construction and demolition or MSW material in the central ridge. The DCF West assures there will be adequate and appropriate monitoring of staff to ensure there is no further dumping of material. The assurance is taken on record, he shall be personally responsible for (it). In case DCF West is in need of any additional resources, he is at liberty to file an application before this court which will be considered”.

Further, the High Court orally said, “How can we choke the central ridge? They are actually the lungs of Delhi. How does this happen? Why is there not any constant monitoring? This couldn’t have been done over a week or 10 days, it must have been months.”

The court was also informed that a trail path was being made inside the ridge. Vashisht, “on instructions”, said this has been stopped and that “there will be no further construction of any kind of path through the central ridge without permission of this court”.

He further said the path that was already made shall be removed, along with the material, within six weeks and a compliance affidavit will be filed.

With respect to the arguments that some trees were felled, DCF west said that some trees were growing on Malcha Mahal and some were adjacent/abutting the walls of the structure. They were dangerous to the structure, the officer said, adding that “38 trees were cut”.

The court was informed that this was done after receiving a letter from the Department of Archaeology that the trees were dangerous to the structure. The officer said the Department of Archaeology had been asked to plant trees around the structure where the trees were removed.

Amicus curiae, advocates Gautam Narayan and Aditya N Prasad, said this could not have been done as it was violative of the SC’s order, in MC Mehta v UOI, for violating the forest conservation act. The HC thereafter asked DCF West to “file an explanation in this regard before the next date of hearing. The DCF west will also indicate if the directions issued to the archaeological department to plant trees have been complied with and the success rate of those trees”.

Regarding the amounts lying in the Green Delhi Account, Vashisht said he will take instructions for the optimal utilisation of funds in consultation with all DCFs. On the issue of the need for another forest in the city and for expanding the existing forest area, the DDA counsel Shobhana Takiar said she will have a meeting with the Director of Planning and will identify some land that can be utilised for extending the forest land.

The HC additionally said that the amicus curiae appointed in the matters will also point out areas where they think it is viable for tree plantation in the city. “Maybe on the roads, boundary walls of various buildings and the same shall be looked into by various depts… The DCF West assures that there will be no clearing of land by felling of trees except without prior intimation to this court,” the HC noted. The matter is next listed on October 9.

The HC was hearing a contempt plea wherein the court had in July asked the DCF to plant trees after it imposed cost on one of the parties to be deposited in the HC’s “Green Delhi Account”. The court was hearing certain issues raised by amicus curiae advocates Gautam Narayan, Aditya N Prasad and Prabhsahay Kaur appointed in the matter.