UP Protection Of Trees Act | Opportunity Of Hearing Mandatory Before Rejecting Permission To Cut Trees: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976, opportunity of hearing is mandatory if the competent authority seeks to reject the application for cutting/ removing or disposing of fallen trees. Perusing Section 5 of the Act which provides the procedure to fell and remove trees, the bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice...
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976, opportunity of hearing is mandatory if the competent authority seeks to reject the application for cutting/ removing or disposing of fallen trees.
Perusing Section 5 of the Act which provides the procedure to fell and remove trees, the bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan held,
“It is also open to the competent authority that in case he is not satisfied with the report made under Section 5 (1) of the Code, 2006, he may make further enquiry. However, the provision to Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1976 clearly provides that permission shall not be refused without affording the opportunity of hearing to the applicant.”
Petitioner, representative of Sharda Investment Company Ltd., Calcutta, moved an application before the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Section Incharge Bankata, Range Bhatni seeking permission to cut 10 teakwood trees. A report was submitted pursuant to the application wherein it was stated that the land belonged to the applicant on which such trees stood and spot inspection was also conducted.
However, the application was rejected on grounds that the land was under dispute and the case was pending before the High Court and Civil Court, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria. Aggrieved, petitioner approached the High Court.
The Court observed that as on date the land stood in the name of the company of which petitioner was the attorney holder and there was no interim order operating against the petitioner before any Court. The Court also observed that there was no case pending before the High Court regarding the property in question.
“The restrictions on felling and removal of trees have been outlined in Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1976') and the procedure for permission to fell or remove trees has been provided under Section 5 of the Act, 1976; and thereafter, under Section 10 of the Act, 1976 penalty for felling or removal of trees in contravention of Section 4 has been prescribed, which is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.”
Noting that Section 5(2) provided for further inquiry in case the report of the officer was unsatisfactory, the Court held that no further inquiry was conducted by the authority in case of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before rejecting his application to cut trees on his property.
Observing that the actions of the authority were not in consonance with law, the Court allowed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority with a fresh application disclosing all proceedings pending before any Court of law and clearly showing the property demarcations.
Case Title: Bihari Lal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130