Compensatory Afforestation Must Be In Same Or Nearby Locality; Trees Planted Elsewhere Can't Compensate Residents: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court while emphasising on the importance of trees, recently made it clear that compensatory afforestation, which is usually done after cutting down trees for a development work, cannot be permitted to be done at a distant or remote place and rather must be done in the close proximity of the very place from where the trees were initially felled.A division bench of Justice...
The Bombay High Court while emphasising on the importance of trees, recently made it clear that compensatory afforestation, which is usually done after cutting down trees for a development work, cannot be permitted to be done at a distant or remote place and rather must be done in the close proximity of the very place from where the trees were initially felled.
A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode was hearing a suo motu PIL taken up on a letter written by advocate Dnyandeep Bhongade which raised a serious issue about cutting of large number of trees in the area of Khamla, Sneha Savardhak Road till Jaitala Road (London Street Road) in Nagpur city.
The issue was highlighted by Bhongade in January 2026, wherein the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) had permitted private entities to cut down some trees on the London Street.
The NMC contended that the private entities had been permitted on the condition of plantings compensatory trees. Even the private bodies claimed to have planted over 10,000 trees as a compensation to cutting down the trees at London Street.
However, the bench was informed that the compensatory afforestation was not done at or nearby the London Street area but at far off remote areas.
Irked over this, the bench observed that such compensatory afforestation may create a spatial imbalance and further cause localised environmental degradation.
"The trees act as natural sinks for a particular matter and pollutants. Their removal spikes localized air pollution. The people in the said area may experience higher temperature and lower humidity and the area from where the trees are to be cut become vulnerable to water run off and land degradation during rains. Similarly, localized micro eco-systems will be destroyed. The native birds, insects will also suffer. Furthermore, the trees regulate water table and localised rainfall. Their removal decreases soil moisture retention and can affect local water availability in the immediate vicinity," the bench emphasised.
These effects of cutting of trees are illustrative, the judges pointed out, while adding that they are only trying to make a point that "if a large number of trees are cut from the areas and against the same compensatory afforestation is made at a distant place, it cannot be of any benefit to the people of the area from where such large number of trees are to be cut. Moreover, new saplings planted far away cannot 'breath' for the residents living in the deforested area, nor do they mitigate the loss of shed or localized temperature regulation for the original ecosystem."
The judges further stated that the term 'compensation' denotes making the loss caused to someone, good in terms of money or other things and therefore, no different meaning can be attached to the expression 'compensatory plantation', which is carried out after deforestation.
"Such afforestation shall therefore, be made in the same locality or if no sufficient place is available for afforestation in the same locality it should be done in the adjoining and nearby locality to compensate the loss suffered due to deforestation by the people of that area. Thus, in any case, such compensatory afforestation cannot be permitted at a distant area as made in this case," the judges made it clear.
The bench therefore ordered the Tree Authority of the NMC to inspect various sites around the London Street, from where the trees are to be cut so that compensatory afforestation can be carried out there.
The matter would next be heard on June 23.
Appearance:
Advocates Naval Shiralkar and RD Dhande are the Amicus Curiae.
Deputy Solicitor General Kartik Shukul and AdvocatePrutha Hardas represented the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Advocate JC Kasat represented the Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
Senior Advocate Akshay Naik along with Advocates Madhur Deo and Shubhankar Phadnis represented Private Bodies.
Additional Government Pleader Deepak Thakare represented the State.
Case Title: Court on its own motion vs Principal Secretary, State of Maharashtra (SMPIL 10 of 2026)