Mohali

The Punjab forest department’s decision to prohibit tree cutting and restrict development on a 23-acre parcel in Sector 69 has brought into focus not only the ecological importance of the land but also a dispute over its ownership, proposed land use and future of the project.

The area comprises around 15 acres of privately owned land, while approximately eight acres are with Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA). The distinction became significant during discussions between the environment protection society, GMADA and other stakeholders, as the parties differed over how the land should be planned and developed.

The Punjab principal chief conservator of forest & head of the forest force (PCCF-HoFF), Dharminder Sharma, (IFS), issued the order on September 1 following directions of the Punjab and Haryana high court. The proceedings considered the competing submissions of the petitioners, GMADA and private parties before directions were issued.

15 acres privately owned, 8 acres with GMADA

The ownership pattern has emerged as an important factor in the dispute. While a substantial portion of the 23-acre parcel is privately held, around eight acres is under GMADA.

During deliberations, the environment protection society indicated that it would be satisfied if the eight-acre area could be retained under green cover. GMADA, however, argued that it was not certain how this portion could be zoned for different land uses in coordination with the society or whether the society would agree to the zoning proposed by GMADA.

According to the proceedings, this difference of opinion meant that the society did not agree to a proposal involving relocation or modification of the project.

No consensus despite discussions

The proceedings record that despite deliberations between the stakeholders, no consensus could ultimately be reached.

The parties were subsequently asked to place their concerns and suggestions on record through written pleadings so that the forest department could issue its order after considering what measures would be in the larger interest of environmental conservation.

This makes the department’s latest directions significant because they provide a regulatory framework for the site even as questions over its future development remain unresolved.

846 trees change the development equation

The dispute is not limited to ownership and zoning. A drone survey and physical inspection of the site found 846 full-grown green trees, besides flora, fauna and water bodies. The inspection involved representatives of the NGO, GMADA, the municipal corporation and private parties.

The forest department has noted the site’s unique biodiversity value, with protected bird and animal species recorded during the assessment. The wildlife assessment included Indian peafowl, common barn owl, black kite, knob-billed duck, lesser whistling duck and Indian rat snake.

The presence of wildlife and its habitat means that the land cannot be considered only in terms of its development potential.

GMADA asked to plan around existing trees

The forest department has directed GMADA to formulate zoning in a manner that results in the least possibility of tree cutting. It has also been advised to seek the assistance of the department so that any permissible activity does not damage trees or the habitat of birds and animals.

The order further examines the possibility of retaining the site as a biodiversity park or urban jungle, while suggesting that land proposed for an urban jungle in Sector 97 could instead be considered for other development requirements.

Public trust doctrine cited

The speaking order also invokes the public trust doctrine, emphasising the responsibility of public authorities to protect natural resources and environmentally significant areas.

For the Sector 69 site, this means that the ownership of individual portions does not by itself settle the question of how the land can be used when its ecological characteristics and protected wildlife are involved.

Future project faces multiple clearances

Any activity on the site will now have to take into account the forest department’s directions, the high court proceedings and permissions required under applicable tree and wildlife protection laws. The order makes clear that tree felling cannot be undertaken except in accordance with prescribed legal conditions and permissions.

Thus, while the 15-acre private component and roughly eight-acre GMADA portion have different ownership, the environmental restrictions apply to the site’s development as a whole, leaving the future of the proposed project dependent on how zoning, conservation and statutory permissions are ultimately reconciled.