Punjab and Haryana HC questions Mohali rotary project tree felling, flags flaws in compensatory planting plan

The counsel said 251 trees would need to be removed for the road widening and rotary construction across the three junctions. Of these, 57 trees had already been cut before the court’s interim orders. These include 19 at Sohana, 16 near the CP67 Mall junction and 22 at the Sector 78–79 junction.

The state further identified 15 “heritage” trees along the corridor, of which nine still existed while six had already been removed. At the CP67 Mall junction, four heritage trees were identified, with three already felled and one remaining, which, according to the approved road alignment, fell directly within the carriageway and could not be retained without obstructing traffic flow. At the Sector 68–69–78–79 junction, two heritage trees were said to fall within the road alignment, while at the Sohana junction, six heritage trees remained near the median and green belt, which GMADA claimed posed traffic safety risks due to their location at the road edge.

The court was shown site plans, photographs and overlays of existing and proposed road alignments, with counsel explaining that several trees currently stood outside the existing road but would fall within the expanded carriageway, median, footpath and cycle track zones under the proposed design. GMADA submitted that the plans had been prepared following consultations with traffic advisory agencies and that rotaries were proposed to reduce congestion, delays and accidents at the busy intersections.

The bench questioned whether alternatives such as underpasses could be considered to avoid large-scale tree cutting. The counsel responded that while flyovers were restricted under planning norms, underpasses were not expressly prohibited, but the Mohali master plan did not envisage such infrastructure at the junctions and only provided for signalised crossings. The state said rotaries were being proposed due to increased traffic and accident risks.

‘GMADA decided on design before seeking recommendations’

Opposing counsel, however, challenged the state’s reliance on a road safety audit report, arguing that the 114-page study cited by the Government did not recommend the construction of the three rotaries. He said the report identified accident black spots and safety concerns but did not propose roundabouts at the specific junctions, and alleged that GMADA had independently conceived the rotary project and later sought road safety clearance. He also pointed to correspondence suggesting that GMADA had sought recommendations after deciding on the design, rather than acting on an expert recommendation.

The petitioners also highlighted that during inspections, officials had indicated that the median could be realigned to save at least six heritage trees, questioning why such measures were not considered earlier. They argued that proactive mechanisms should be put in place to preserve trees, instead of resorting to cutting and compensatory planting after approvals.

On compensatory afforestation, the state counsel said permissions required the plantation of five times the number of trees cut, with a plan to plant over 1,255 trees and additional plantations at Chandigarh University, where large tracts of land were available. The state also indicated that the plantation could be shifted to forest land in Mullanpur district and that monitoring reports would be filed.

‘Merely densifying forests won’t do’

The petitioners strongly objected to planting trees in existing forest land as compensatory afforestation, arguing that the objective of the policy was to increase tree cover in non-forest and urban public areas, not merely densify forests that were already protected. They cited policy clauses and expert committee reports submitted to the Supreme Court, contending that roadside and public land trees lacked adequate legal protection and that current procedures were geared towards facilitating tree felling rather than prevention.
The petitioners’ counsel further pointed out that a forest officer’s assessment report had recommended planting 10 times the number of trees cut, but the district-level committee had limited the requirement to the minimum five times prescribed under the policy. He urged the court to insist on maximum possible plantation and a stronger preservation framework rather than treating afforestation as a routine post facto mitigation measure.

The court indicated that the core issue was achieving sustainable development and questioned whether the state had an adequate mechanism to prevent unnecessary tree felling. The court was informed that six heritage trees could now be saved after the PIL petition and inspections, prompting it to ask why such safeguards were not built into planning from the outset.