Compensatory Plantation Far From Felled Trees Offers No Relief to Affected Residents, Says Bombay HC Nagpur Bench

The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench held that compensatory afforestation at a distant location cannot substitute for trees cut from Khamla and directed the Tree Authority to identify nearby plantation sites by 23 June 2026.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode, on 16 June 2026 directed the Tree Authority and Tree Officer to survey and identify plantation sites in the immediate vicinity of Khamla, Sneha Savardhak Road to Jaitala Road (London Street Road), where a large number of trees are proposed to be felled. The Bench, hearing a suo motu PIL registered on a letter from Advocate Dnyandeep Bhongade, found that planting roughly ten thousand compensatory trees at a location far removed from the deforestation site does not fulfil the purpose of compensatory plantation and causes a spatial imbalance that harms the very residents the condition was meant to protect.

How the PIL Came Before the Court

The PIL — Public Interest Litigation No. 10 of 2026 — was registered suo motu on 17 January 2026 after the court received a letter from Advocate Dnyandeep Bhongade raising concerns about the large-scale cutting of trees along Khamla, Sneha Savardhak Road to Jaitala Road (London Street Road) in Nagpur.

Respondent No. 7 and the Municipal Corporation both filed affidavits in the matter. The permission granted to Respondent No. 7 for cutting the trees carried a condition requiring compensatory plantation. Senior Advocate Akshay Naik, appearing for Respondent No. 7, submitted that the condition had been complied with and that approximately ten thousand compensatory trees had been planted.

The Bench, however, noted a critical fact: the compensatory plantation had been carried out not in or near the area from which the trees were to be removed, but at a location far away from Khamla and the adjoining roads.

Why Distant Plantation Fails the Affected Area

The Bench examined in detail what the removal of a large number of trees from a specific locality actually does to that locality. Trees act as natural sinks for particulate matter and pollutants. Their removal spikes localised air pollution. Residents of the affected area may experience higher temperatures and lower humidity. The land becomes vulnerable to water run-off and degradation during rains, and localised micro eco-systems — including habitat for native birds and insects — are destroyed. Trees also regulate the water table and localised rainfall; their removal decreases soil moisture retention and can affect local water availability.

The court was careful to describe these effects as illustrative rather than exhaustive. The central point the Bench made was that new saplings planted far away cannot “breathe” for the residents living in the deforested area, nor do they mitigate the loss of shade or localised temperature regulation for the original ecosystem.

The Bench then turned to the meaning of the word “compensation” itself. Compensation, the court observed, denotes making good the loss caused to someone. No different meaning can be attached to the expression “compensatory plantation.” Afforestation carried out after deforestation must therefore be made in the same locality. If sufficient space is unavailable in the same locality, it should be done in an adjoining or nearby locality so that the people of the affected area actually receive the benefit. Plantation at a distant area, the Bench held, cannot in any case be permitted as compensatory plantation.

The Spatial Imbalance Argument

The court's reasoning rested on what it called a “spatial imbalance.” When trees are removed from one locality and replacement saplings are planted elsewhere, the environmental deficit — higher pollution, heat, reduced humidity, degraded soil — remains concentrated in the original area. The distant plantation may eventually mature into a functioning green cover, but it does nothing for the people and the ecosystem at the site of felling. The condition of compensatory plantation, as imposed by the Corporation, was meant to offset that local loss. Fulfilling it at a remote site defeats the condition's own purpose.

The Bench also noted that the effects it described are not speculative. Localised air pollution spikes, temperature increases, and soil degradation are direct and immediate consequences of tree removal, not long-term projections. A compensatory measure that operates at a distance and over a longer time horizon cannot address these immediate, localised harms.

Directions to the Tree Authority

The Bench directed the Tree Authority and Tree Officer to identify places near the area from which the trees are to be cut and to file an affidavit listing those places along with the number of trees that can be planted at each site. This exercise is to be completed and the affidavit filed by 23 June 2026.

The court also directed that the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Naval Shiralkar (appearing for Mr. R. D. Dhande), may accompany the Tree Officer during the survey to identify suitable nearby sites. The Tree Authority is required to give the Amicus Curiae at least four hours' prior notice before visiting any site for this purpose.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 23 June 2026.

Order

The Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode, in Public Interest Litigation No. 10 of 2026, held that compensatory plantation at a distant locality does not satisfy the requirement of compensatory afforestation and directed the Tree Authority and Tree Officer to survey nearby sites, file an affidavit listing those sites and the number of trees plantable at each, and give the Amicus Curiae at least four hours' prior notice before any such survey visit. The affidavit is due by 23 June 2026, when the matter will be taken up again.