Team Herald
PANJIM: The controversy surrounding alleged illegal tree felling near the High Court of Bombay at Goa has intensified, with petitioners now submitting photographic and video evidence contradicting official claims by the Forest Department.
The material, filed in an affidavit-in-reply on Tuesday, points to widespread tree cutting on the southern and eastern cliffs surrounding the High Court complex in Porvorim.
On March 12 this year, the High Court of Bombay at Goa had issued an interim order stopping the felling of trees while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) writ petition filed by Ganpat Sidhaye and Dinesh Dias.
The petitioners stated that a cursory examination of the photographs and video footage accompanying the affidavit will establish that the affidavit in the matter was filed in a perfunctory manner with the intent to mislead the Court and had not accorded the matter the gravity
it deserves.
The petitioners in their affidavit have pointed out that the area is a landslide-prone and ecologically sensitive and that the respondent had not bothered to peruse the contents of the documents and the detailed statements made in the PIL writ petition.
They have reiterated that the Survey Number 76/1-C and 76/1-E of Penha-De-France Village Panchayat is designated as partly settlement, partly natural cover, and partly no-development slope.
The subject land is an ecologically sensitive area when the official legends of Regional Plan 2021 has classified No Development slopes as Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ECO1) zone and Natural Cover as Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ECO-2).
The Disaster Management Plan 2012, explicitly states that existing landslide areas, whether old or new, are generally prone to recurrent landslides, and even a superficial inspection of the outer wall of the High Court premises reveals alarming indications of structural compromise including cracks in the plaster, tile, and brick foundations, all recognised warning signs of impending landslides. These structural defects have manifested on the High Court building within a mere five years of its inauguration, which is a matter of grave concern.
There is a well-documented history of landslides in the area, including a landslide on September 4, 2007, which had severely disrupted traffic on NH-17 for nearly a month. The
North Goa Collector had also recommended a comprehensive geological survey of the entire hillock given its unstable nature, the petitioners said, emphasising both the Environmental Impact Assessment report and the Environmental Clearance granted at the time of constructing the High Court.
Regarding planting of 290 trees within and around the complex against the felling of 290 trees permitted on 28/11/2014, the respondent had failed to disclose to the Court the current status of afforestation/replanting of the said 290 trees even after a decade had elapsed since granting such permission, the petitioners have stated.
The High Court Registrar also wrote a formal letter dated January 17, 2024, complaining about tree felling, and that the advocates and others had observed and documented the tree felling activities at the subject site.
The periphery/cliff surrounding the High Court was provisionally identified as a private forest in 2018 by the expert V T Thomas Committee but was subsequently removed from this protective classification by a review committee without conducting any site inspection whatsoever, in clear violation of established protocols. This critical issue regarding the proper classification and protection of the forest area is currently pending adjudication before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).