Telangana HC Directs State Not To Disturb Flora, Fauna In Damagundam Area

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin asked the government how many trees had survived out of the 7,822 that were translocated from the 2,900-acre forest land that was given to the project. The court also inquired about the condition of the 25,000 saplings, which were planted as compensatory afforestation.

The court asked what measures the government had taken to protect butterflies, birds and rare shrubs. “Have you relocated them also,” the court asked and said that flora and fauna in the locality should not be disturbed.

The bench was hearing a PIL seeking to restrain the state government from allotting land at Damagundam to the Eastern Naval Command and calling for compensatory afforestation for the loss of forest cover. As the project had come into existence, the petitioners wanted compliance with the conditions mentioned in the compensatory afforestation programme.

Counsel for the petitioners on Monday submitted that the conditions were not complied with so far, despite the time meant for the purpose having run out.

Government counsel, while explaining the action taken, submitted that a survey had been conducted on the compliances and requested two weeks to submit the report. He said the biodiversity management committee, which operates with the village sarpanch as ex-officio chairman, had remained non-functional since November 2022 following the sarpanch vacating office. It was assured that with the election of the new sarpanch, the committee would become functional again.

On behalf of the Centre, counsel submitted that compensatory afforestation was not a statutory requirement for a Central government organisation. It was stated that the Indian Navy had volunteered to bear the cost of afforestation over double the extent of degraded forest area, in accordance with a compensation action plan

The court asked the Centre to place on record a compliance report concerning the establishment of the establishment, with particular reference to its alleged effect on local biodiversity.

Amicus curiae Vivek Jain informed the court that project approval was granted subject to the Indian Navy undertaking compensatory afforestation and that the state government was required to maintain afforestation over twice the area of the forest land degraded due to the project.

Jain clarified that the defence authorities were not seeking a blanket exemption from compliance, as the permission granted — reflected in the Centre’s counter-affidavit — was expressly conditional upon adherence to the stipulations imposed by the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate

The court adjourned the matter to January 20 and directed Union and state governments to file their counters.