The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that development and the protection of the environment have to go hand in hand [Firdos Cambatta vs State of Gujarat],.A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea by a resident of Ahmedabad's Hansol village about large-scale tree felling for the second phase of a riverfront development project. The Court refused to interfere with the tree felling after noting that the tree which were cut were of wild growth and not much effort would be required for their regrowth. "Development and environment has to go hand in hand," CJI Kant said..The National Green Tribunal, Pune (NGT) had earlier declined to interfere with the tree felling after noting that the trees sought to be felled were gando baval (sometimes referred to as mad tree) trees, which were not protected vegetation, and that these trees lay on non-forest land. The NGT also rejected a claim that these trees lay in ecologically sensitive land, while closing an application filed to stop the tree-felling activities. The NGT's December 2025 ruling in the matter was then challenged before the top court. .The petitioner's counsel today told the Court, "4,000 maturely grown trees have been cut. A readymade forest has been chopped down. This forest was planted 50-60 years ago ... They (authorities) did not explore alternatives.. it (the forested area) has Neelgai etc ... One old tree cannot be replaced. Needs 50-60 Years. How to fell a tree based on a notification meant for the farmers and especially without any adherence to rules?"However, the Bench said that trees can regrow with time, and that there are good success stories of afforestation to make up for environmental losses that arise in the path to development."These trees are of wild growth. What about the roads, etc. to ferry (for) someone in an emergency? See these plants does not require much effort to grow. Forest or no forest, it will grow everywhere. There are good success stories in Rajasthan. It is not like somebody will not do it ...See the report of the expert body," CJI Kant said. The petitioner's lawyer persisted in expressing concerns about the manner in which the deforestation was carried out."All documents was submitted before them. It was a one-sided report. They are saying larger trees are not cut and we showed them that the larger trees were indeed cut," he said. The CJI, in turn, again noted that such losses may sometimes arise to meet the demands of development."When you construct Helipad... This is to ferry...," he noted. "There is an airport 5 minutes from there ... Schedule 1 species (protected wildlife) comes to this forest," the lawyer replied. The Bench maintained that it was not inclined to interfere, particularly since compensatory afforestation efforts are also being planned in this case. "Helipad is different from the airport. It is not a notified forest area also ... These were just wild growths. They have also ensured that double compensatory plantation will be done," CJI Kant said. The Court proceeded to close the plea by asking the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to form a committee to identify land where compensatory plantation of trees may be carried out. .[Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
