Punjab and Haryana High Court Raises Concerns Over Mohali Rotary Project Tree Felling
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised serious questions regarding the proposed large-scale tree cutting for new road rotaries in Mohali, challenging both the infrastructure design necessity and the state's compensatory afforestation approach. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard detailed arguments on Tuesday concerning the controversial project.
Traffic Safety Versus Environmental Preservation
The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) and Punjab Government presented their case for constructing rotaries at three major junctions along the PR7 Airport Road corridor. Their counsel argued that rising traffic volumes, increasing congestion, and multiple accidents necessitated redesigning the intersections. The state identified these locations as accident black spots posing significant safety risks to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists.
According to official submissions, the project would require removing 251 trees across the three junctions. Shockingly, 57 trees had already been cut before the court's interim orders, including several designated as heritage trees with ecological and historical significance.
Court Questions Alternatives and Planning Process
The bench specifically questioned whether alternatives such as underpasses could be considered to avoid extensive tree removal. While GMADA's counsel acknowledged that underpasses weren't expressly prohibited, they argued that the Mohali master plan only provided for signalized crossings at these junctions.
Opposing counsel challenged the state's reliance on a road safety audit report, pointing out that the 114-page study did not recommend constructing the three rotaries. They alleged that GMADA had independently conceived the rotary project and later sought road safety clearance, with correspondence suggesting the authority had decided on the design before seeking expert recommendations.
Compensatory Afforestation Plan Under Scrutiny
The state presented a compensatory afforestation plan requiring plantation of five times the number of trees cut, totaling over 1,255 new trees. Proposed planting sites included Chandigarh University and forest land in Mullanpur district.
However, petitioners strongly objected to planting trees in existing forest areas, arguing that compensatory afforestation policy aims to increase tree cover in non-forest and urban public areas, not merely densify already protected forests. They cited policy clauses and expert committee reports submitted to the Supreme Court, contending that current procedures facilitate tree felling rather than prevention.
Heritage Trees and Preservation Mechanisms
The court learned that during inspections, officials had indicated the median could be realigned to save at least six heritage trees, prompting the bench to question why such preservation measures weren't considered earlier. The petitioners argued for proactive mechanisms to preserve trees instead of resorting to cutting and compensatory planting after approvals.
A forest officer's assessment had recommended planting ten times the number of trees cut, but the district-level committee limited the requirement to the minimum five times prescribed under policy. Petitioners urged the court to insist on maximum possible plantation and a stronger preservation framework.
Sustainable Development and Planning Safeguards
The court emphasized that the core issue involved achieving sustainable development and questioned whether the state had adequate mechanisms to prevent unnecessary tree felling. The bench noted that six heritage trees could now be saved following the PIL petition and inspections, asking why such safeguards weren't built into planning from the outset.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between infrastructure development and environmental preservation in rapidly urbanizing regions, with the court seeking balanced solutions that prioritize both public safety and ecological sustainability.
