Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | Afforestation Across Multiple Sites Preferable To A Single Contiguous Tract, Says Supreme Court

In the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling contempt case, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed that tree plantation across 18 different sites in Delhi would be a better choice compared to plantation on one contiguous stretch of land.

"Contiguous land of 185 acres in an area like Delhi may not be advisable...if rather we have scattered pockets where we can develop forests, that will be beneficial. That will also reflect kind of equality. Different parts of the city can have green coverage...even people living in remote areas will have advantage of some forest, green pockets in their surrounding...for environmental purposes, particularly in a city like Delhi, where you want to fight out with this grave air pollution conditions, it is always ideal if you develop more than one pocket", expressed Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and called for location data of the 18 sites decided to be allocated to Delhi Forest Department for plantation purposes.

"The petitioner's affidavit has pointed out that 185 acres of land required to be offered by DDA for plantation required 1,67,000 trees to be planted. But as per experts' report, there may be a demand for additional land over and above 185 acres for purpose of abovementioned plantation. It is however pointed out by Forest Dept and DDA that 18 separate sites totaling 168.88 acres have been decided to be allocated to Forest Dept for plantation...Physical possession of 17 sites has been handed over. As regards the18th site, there's dispute re ownership between DDA and Revenue Dept. Ld. senior counsel for DDA, on instructions, says that issue has been resolved and that 18th site will also be handed over to Forest Dept. We make it clear that even if dispute is pending, Revenue Dept and DDA are directed to hand over unconditional possession of 18th site to Forest Dept", the Court noted in its order.

It further requested that after plantation on all 18 sites, the Expert Committee submit a report with respect to plantation of total trees and additional area/sites that may be required to ensure that 1,67,000 trees are actually planted. "A comprehensive scheme to ensure minimum mortality and maintenance of all plants shall also be submitted" the Court said, while reiterating that any additional expenditure required to be made by Forest Dept shall be borne by DDA.

During the hearing, Justice Kant emphasized that every inch of the 185 acres of land should be "usable", that is, fertile enough for trees acclimatized to Delhi to survive. A contention by the Delhi Forest Dept that winter weather is not ideal for plantation was found to have merit. Accordingly, the bench gave the Department time till March to start plantation.

"Forest Dept, under the supervision and guidance of the Expert Committee, will start plantation keeping in view the weather conditions. For this purpose, the timeline fixed earlier is extended till 31 March, 2026."

At one point, Justice Kant questioned why a perimeter boundary wall is required around the 18 sites for plantation, suggesting use of barbed wire instead. In response, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, for DDA, told the bench that fencing tends to disappear but with boundary walls, the trees can be protected. He also submitted that DDA has taken over the task of erecting boundary walls and work has been partially allotted.

Before parting with the matter, the bench also conveyed that plantation on 185 acres of identified land is the first phase and subsequently, with the assistance of Expert Committee, it will see what more can be done to enhance green cover of the capital.

Background

The case pertains to the felling of trees in the Delhi ridge forest to widen road for the the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital in violation of the Supreme Court's orders. Following that, the Court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the DDA officials.

On May 28, the Supreme Court constituted a Committee to frame an afforestation plan, which the Forest Department was to implement under its supervision. The entire cost of the afforestation was directed to be borne by the DDA. The Court also directed the identification of 185 acres of land, details of which were to be reported to the Committee.

In September, DDA informed the Court that the requisite land had been allotted and trees for afforestation identified. Likewise, Forest Department, GNCTD stated that the land had been handed over to the department. Hearing the parties, the Court called for a detailed report from the Forest Department with regard to the suitability of 185 acres of land allocated. Insofar as the Forest Department claimed that the allocated land was not fenced, and therefore, some more funds may be required from DDA, the Court asked the Department to raise the demand and file an affidavit in case of any reluctance on part of DDA.

In compliance of the Court's orders, Chief Secretary, GNCTD recently filed an affidavit detailing the subsequent developments. It mentioned that DDA, which has a dedicated Engineering Department, will construct the boundary wall wherever required, upto a minimum height of 6 ft.

The affidavit further stated that nodal officers had been nominated by the Forest Department and DDA to implement the measures recommended by the Committee and restore the capital's green cover. In terms of the Court's directions, the officers shall also ensure filing of a jointly signed bi-annual compliance report before this Court, duly supported by photographic and video documentation, evidencing status and upkeep of afforested areas.

It is also stated that the preliminary layout plan had been finalized by DDA. As such, District Magistrate (South), GNCTD had been instructed to start identification process of affluent persons who may unduly benefit from the road widening project launched to facilitate access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital. In accordance with the Court's directions, this was to impose a one-time levy on such persons, commensurate with the cost of construction.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Maninder Singh, Shyam Divan, Aditya Sondhi and Sanjay Jain; Senior Advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and Anitha Shenoy (Amici Curiae)

Case Title: BINDU KAPUREA Versus SUBHASISH PANDA AND ORS., MA 1652/2025