C.W.P. No.808 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.808 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:29.07.2009 D.S.Ahluwalia ...Petitioner Versus The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Jasbir Singh Chahal, Advocate, respondent No.4 in person. **** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No.9503 of 2009 Application is allowed. Photographs are taken on record. C.M. No.12195 of 2009 Application is allowed. Rejoinder is taken on record. C.W.P. No.808 of 2009 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that respondents be directed to cut eight Safeda (Green) and one Mulberry (Green) trees, standing adjoining the boundary wall of Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh, along side the wall of House No.9, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh. C.W.P. No.808 of 2009 (O&M) -2- It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the trees in question have led their life and are tilting towards house of the petitioner and may fell at any time, causing damage to the property and life of the petitioner/his family. To strengthen his claim, reference has been made to photographs Annexure P-5. It is further stated that the petitioner had moved an application (P-1), on 26.02.2007, to the department to cut those trees. On his application (P-1), report was sought by the Competent Authority from the Field Staff and as per report dated 14.03.2007 (P-2), cutting of the trees was recommended. When nothing was done, petitioner served a notice (P-3), on 15.09.2008, in response to which, Assistant Landscaping Officer, Horticulture Sub Division No.1, Chandigarh wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, for grant of permission to cut those trees. Efforts made by the petitioner failed to yield any result, then, he has filed this writ petition. In response to notice issued by this Court, short reply has been filed. In para No.3 of the reply, it has been stated as under: - “That while in compliance to the aforesaid directions of this Hon'ble Court, the answering deponent will be appearing in person on the next date of hearing i.e. on 25.05.2009. As regards, the relief claimed by the applicant in the instant Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that the case regarding cutting of trees in the premises of Govt. Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh was submitted to the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh vide U.O. No.412 dated 27.04.2009. The site was inspected by the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh C.W.P. No.808 of 2009 (O&M) -3- alongwith Shri Harjit Singh, Executive Engineer, Horticulture and other concerned officers of the Horticulture Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh on 08.05.2009. After inspecting the site, it was found that the trees in question are existing within the premises of the said School and are quite at a distance i.e. about 10 feet from the boundary wall of the school as is evident from the still photographs annexed at Annexure R-1 (Collectively). Moreover, these are Green trees and the age of these trees varies from 20 to 25 years. During site visit of the Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh, it was found that none of these trees is damaging the building/house of the petitioner in any manner. However, one branch of a Safeda tree was bending towards the house of the petitioner and as per orders of the competent authority, i.e. Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh, the said branch has already been cut/chopped down. Still photographs showing the cutting of the said branch are attached as Annexure R-2 (Collectively). However, keeping in view the site conditions, since apparently none of the trees is posing any threat or damage to the house of the petitioner, as such, the competent authority, has rejected the request of the petitioner regarding removal of said trees.” After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that in view of a fact that there is a distance of about 20 feet between house of the petitioner and the trees, probably and possibly, apprehension raised by the petitioner is not justified. Perusal of photograph (R-1) clearly C.W.P. No.808 of 2009 (O&M) -4- indicates that branches of one tree were tilting towards house of the petitioner. As per reply filed, those were pruned. This fact is apparent from photograph (R-2) put on record. Further more, these trees are standing 10 feet away from the boundary wall of the school and in between boundary wall of the school and house of the petitioner, there exists a lane of about 10 feet width. If that is so, prayer made by the petitioner is not justified. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. July 29, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE s