The Delhi High Court was informed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on Monday it has identified an area of 50 acres to be developed as a forest for the city, after which the court asked the authority to submit the details of the land parcel. The submission was made in a petition related to permissions granted by tree officers concerned for felling trees without passing speaking orders. On March 18, a single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh had issued contempt notices for violation of the court's previous orders to the DDA vice-chairman and principal secretary of the Delhi government's Forest Department, concerning the "felling of 1,000 trees", including in the Southern Ridge, for the construction of an approach road between Chattarpur Road and SAARC University near Maidan Garhi. On Monday, DDA's counsel "on instructions" submitted that a 50-acre land had been identified for developing a forest for Delhi. The counsel also said the Authority tenders its "unconditional apology" and that while "there had been a lapse" the same was "not contemptuous". The counsel submitted the field staff working on the site had "misconstrued" the February 14 Forest Department notification exempting 4.9955 hectares of the land for the construction of the approach road, for which certain conditions had to be met before tree felling, as a "clearance/permission" for cutting the trees. Thereafter, Justice Singh directed, "Let an affidavit along with details, coordinates and steps to be taken for developing 50 acres as forest be placed on record within 10 days". Justice Singh also told the DDA's counsel to share the details of the land and discuss the same with the amicus curiae appointed in the matter Advocate Gautam Narayan as well as the petitioner's counsel Advocate Aditya N Prasad. As the DDA's counsel submitted the proposed 50-acre land will be in the Madanpur Khadar area, Narayan and Prasad said the land proposed for afforestation fell on the Yamuna riverbed and therefore cannot be used for afforestation. They submitted that the authority had stated in an affidavit that the land on the Yamuna riverbed cannot be used, and the Forest Department's counsel also submitted that this land cannot be used where in case of flood, all plantations will be washed away. "How will it be a forest if it's on the river bed? In case of flood, it will be washed away. It is not acceptable. You check it. It is not adversarial. No harm in showing the details of the land. Show it to Mr Narayan and Mr Prasad," Justice Singh orally said to which DDA's counsel submitted the details will be shared. During the hearing, the amicus curiae submitted that the only way DDA's contempt can be purged is if they restore the same land on which contempt has been committed to the same position it was in before they had cut the trees. "Today they can't reap the benefits of their own wrongs. They have to restore the land to its previous condition. There is no other way. They are not a law unto themselves. The message going to the department is that they can do the act, commit the illegality and the court will let me go scot-free by saying you plant somewhere else. These departments need to function as per law. It's not just DDA. Its various land owning agencies; if each of them start functioning in this manner it is a very slope that this city is standing on," Narayan emphasised. Justice Singh, however, said while it agreed on other points, it was not in agreement with the amicus curiae's argument that the "plantation be done on the same route”, adding "unfortunately" the trees have already been cut and afforestation on the same site will "serve no purpose". "Restoring the status quo ante would take 6-7 years for trees to come up. Today, they are giving land for the development of a forest. Those trees would be kept there. We will give directions to the user agency to maintain the forest," Justice Singh said. During the hearing, Justice Singh asked about the dimension of the land required to be converted into a forest to bring down pollution levels by "one per cent", to which Narayan said an expert would have to be consulted to answer this query. The DDA's counsel said the issue of tree felling had been placed before the Ridge Management Board and an application was also moved before the Supreme Court. However, Justice Singh said, "Be under no illusion, nobody can touch the ridge. Not even the Ridge Management Board. It can't grant permission to cut trees". Meanwhile, Narayan submitted that while the Authority had moved an application before the Supreme Court in February seeking permission to fell/ translocate trees, the top court had on March 4 observed that it was "very vague" and directed the authority to "re-examine its proposal" and ensure that there is minimum felling of trees. The High Court was informed the trees were cut sometime between February 21-29. "For listing of the application they mentioned before the SC on February 22, which was filed on February 15. After mentioning the application in SC, they felled the trees. The matter comes up on March 4. They don't tell the SC even then. The SC asked them to re-examine its proposal not knowing that the deed had already been done, without Forest Conservation Act permission," Narayan argued. The matter is now listed on April 23.
