Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Plant Ten Times The Number Of Trees Affected By Road Widening & Beautification Work

While hearing pleas against demolition drives for road widening allegedly conducted without following procedure, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to first count number of plants/trees which are to be removed for beautification work and road expansion, and subsequently plant trees ten times of this number in nearby public areas.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that planting trees and plants was an initiative considered appropriate by the Court, as thriving tree, whether for decades or centuries provided continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community. It said,

"While carrying out development work for beautification of the city and expansion of roads in the larger public interest, the respondents must ensure that if trees or plants need to be removed, they first count and document the number of such affected trees and plants. Subsequently, they should plant trees ten times of the number in the nearby public areas close to the city. This condition is imposed in greater public interest. Planting trees and plants, as directed above, is an initiative that this Court considers appropriate, as thriving trees, whether for decades or centuries, provide continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community. Future generations will enjoy a cleaner, fresher, and oxygen-rich environment as a result thereof"

In relation to the demolition drive for the road-widening, writ petitions were filed by the petitioners who were claiming to be the lawful occupants of the properties in Jaipur, alleging that the demolition drive was started by the State without following due process of law.

The court expressed its shock at the stance of the respondent authorities who had claimed that the petitioners had refused to accept notices issued by the authorities, noting that 2-3 persons were consistently shown as witnesses to the alleged refusal of notices by petitioners, raising doubts about the process. 

"It is both shocking and surprising on the part of the respondents, in claiming that the petitioner has refused to accept the notice on 08.07.2022. An endorsement to this effect has been made on the same date i.e. on 08.07.2022 in back date, at the bottom of the final impugned order dated 18.07.2022. The question emerges that how notices can be treated as served on 08.07.2022, when the endorsement in this regard is made on the order dated 18.07.2022 itself. The previous notice annexed with the writ petition also reveals that it was signed by the same two witnesses, namely Inderjeet and Ram Kumar Saini. The other identical and similar notices issued by the respondents in the month of July, 2022 also indicate that the same persons i.e. Inderjeet, Ram Kumar Saini, and Rajendra Kumar Saini, were consistently shown as witnesses to the alleged “refusal of notices” by all the petitioners. What is particularly striking in these cases is that only these two or three individuals were made witnesses in each notice, which raises serious doubts about fairness and credibility of the respondents' actions and their conduct. Such action on the part of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Principle of natural justice i.e. ”audi alteram partem” states that before passing any adverse order against any person, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to him. But in the instant case, the impugned orders have been passed ex parte without affording any opportunity of hearing to most of the petitioners. In some of the matters, opportunity was provided but the documents, relied by the petitioners, were not taken into consideration". 

A master plan for prepared under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 for development of the town of Kothputli for the year 2011-2031. Under this plan, it was decided to remove permanent and temporary encroachments from roads and footpaths for width extension of the roads.

It was argued that based on an earlier coordinate bench decision of the Court that ordered the State to decide the objections to the road-widening plan, petitioners had made representation along with supporting documents establishing their right over the land. Despite the same, without affording any opportunity of hearing or communicating the order to the petitioners, the State started the demolition drive.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that a Master plan was a policy for guiding the future development of cities or towns in a planned manner which could not be modified or disregarded at the whims or fancies of the authority or anyone else just to serve personal interest. It had to be implemented in larger public interest. Hence, none could be allowed to raise objections regarding the road widening.

At the same time, it was observed that forceful dispossession of a person from his private property without following due process was violative of Article 301-A of the Constitution.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the city's development and beautification efforts, as outlined in the Master Plan, should proceed without obstruction. However, it is equally essential to ensure that property owners whose assets are subject to demolition are given a fair hearing.”

The Court also constituted a committee within 15 days to hear and examine the grievances of every petitioner and provide necessary compensation or alternative land allotment in case valid title of the concerned individual was established over the land.

"If such a Committee comes to the conclusion that any individual is having a valid title over his/her property and still his /her property is required for expansion of the width of the road, in public interest, then decision must be taken at appropriate level to compensate such person(s)," it added.

The Court further added, “If, during the course of expansion or construction of the road, plants or trees are required to be removed then the respondents are directed to count such trees/plants and prepare an inventory. For every removed tree or plant, the respondents shall plant ten shady plants in the close vicinity and nearby public area and shall submit a report in this regard to this Court.”

Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of.

Title: Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

Click Here To Read/Download Order