Delhi HC asks forest conservator to decide if 60-year-old pipal needs to be cut

Appearing for the Delhi government, its additional standing counsel Gautam Narayan told the court that the civic body had sought permission to transplant the tree as it had become “dangerous” on account of digging work around it

The Delhi high court on Thursday asked the deputy conservator of forests (DCF) to examine the condition of a 60-year-old pipal tree in Inderpuri area, while remarking that prima facie, the tree did not show any tilt or damage that it should be cut.

The high court said the photographs showed that the building has already been constructed and there was no need, as such, to shift the tree. (HT Photo)

“The photographs annexed… prima facie shows that there was no danger of the tree falling down as there is no tilt or sagging of the tree in the photograph. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that the adjoining building has been constructed and the basement has been fixed up. Prima facie there is no danger of the tree falling down,” the court said.

On the last date, the court had stayed the felling of the tree on an urgent mentioning by senior advocate N Hari Haran who contended that the 60-year-old tree in his locality was being cut by the authorities

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva on Thursday perused the photographs of the tree also pulled up the DCF for giving permission for the transplanting of the pipal tree. It asked the DCF to ascertain whether the tree is dangerous enough that it should be felled or transplanted.

“What was the requirement to even transplant the tree?”, he said when the counsel for North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NrDMC) told the court that the tree was to be removed on account of the adjoining constructions.

Appearing for the Delhi government, its additional standing counsel Gautam Narayan told the court that the civic body had sought permission to transplant the tree as it had become “dangerous” on account of digging work around it. He said the permission was granted for a limited period only and it expired on November 4.

The counsel for the civic body said due to the construction of a nearby building, the entire basement was dug up and hence the tree was to be transplanted.

However, the court said the current photographs showed that the building has already been constructed and there was no need, as such, to shift the tree. It also raised questions as to how such a full grown tree could be removed and taken elsewhere without damaging its roots.

Sachdeva asked the authorities to file a report after examining the condition of the tree and posted the matter for further hearing to November 18.