Cut Trees Only If So Dangerously Placed That Damage Becomes Imminent: Meghalaya HC Issues Directions For Felling Trees In A Shillong Colony

The Meghalaya High Court recently directed the State Authorities to instruct each and every applicant who has filed applications under Meghalaya Tree Preservation Rules, 1976, for felling of trees in the Lower New Colony area, Laitumkhrah, to explain the details how these trees 'have become dangerous to life and property'.

The division bench comprising the Chief Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh further passed several directions including an inspection of the property and the tree or trees standing thereon by the State authorities before taking a decision to fell a tree.

The Court was hearing a PIL seeking directions to prevent illegal or irregular felling of trees in the Lower New Colony area, Laitumkhrah.

Vide its order dated February 7, the Court directed the State respondents to file an affidavit by February 28, disclosing all pending applications for felling of trees in the above region. The Court had further directed that those applications should be proceeded with in accordance with the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Act 1976 and the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Rules, 1976.

It was directed that the decision in each of these applications to be disclosed in the affidavit together with decisions already made allowing felling of trees but not executed and felling should be kept in abeyance and the decision reviewed by the respondent authorities.

The State respondents filed the said affidavit, Annexure-1 of which provides the number of pending applications, the number of trees to be felled requested in each of the applications, the reason cited by each applicant for such felling, an inspection and a status report for each application.

“We find that all the applications are pending consideration. The number of trees requested to be felled in an application ranges from 2 to 89. The reason cited by each and every applicant for felling of trees is “tree posing danger to human life”, the Court noted.

The Court noted that these applications are in accordance with a format prescribed at Form-1 to Rule 3(1) Meghalaya Tree Preservation Rules, 1976 and it cannot order alteration of the form.

“Nevertheless, we direct the State respondents to instruct each and every applicant to append as an annexure to the form, in explanation of the reason: “has become dangerous to life and property” the details how the tree has become dangerous to life and property,” the Court directed.

The Court further directed as follows:

• The State respondents shall thereafter inspect the property and the tree or trees standing thereon. If they do find that a tree “has become dangerous to life and property”, first of all they will try to preserve it by taking appropriate measures like clipping the trunk and branches or chopping a part of it and retaining the rest.
• Only if that does not suffice, a decision be taken to fell the tree. Only in case of a tree which is so dangerously situated that danger or damage is imminent, should the respondents fell it immediately.
• At the moment, no tree should be felled unless it is imminently dangerous and would cause substantial damage if allowed to stand, even before the Court is in a position to hear out the PIL.

The matter is once again listed on April 9.

Case Title: Geraldine G. Shabong v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No.: PIL No. 2/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order