NGT halts tree felling for Hebbal Short Tunnel Project

The National Green Tribunal ordered that no trees can be cut in any area of the Hebbal Short Tunnel Project. This is a project-wide restriction, not a ban limited to one road section or site. It matters because the Bangalore Development Authority cannot proceed with tree felling while the environmental dispute remains before the tribunal.

The order followed an application by Aranya, Parisara Mathu Havamana Badalavane, Sangha, Mangaluru. The group pointed out that an earlier undertaking before the Karnataka High Court concerned Lalbagh, not every area covered by the tunnel project. The NGT then clarified that its case covered the entire project and tree felling connected with it.

The ban continues until the matter is disposed of. The next hearing is fixed for December 15, so the BDA cannot cut trees along the alignment at least until then. The order does not finally decide whether the project or tree removal will proceed.

The National Green Tribunal is a specialised legal forum for environmental disputes in India. It examines challenges involving environmental harm, approvals, and actions that may affect forests, trees, land, water, or public health. Its role is to apply environmental law and provide a route for groups or individuals seeking protection from potentially damaging activity.

In this case, the NGT acted after taking suo motu cognisance of a newspaper report about 1,128 trees marked for removal. Suo motu means the tribunal began examining the issue on its own, rather than waiting for a standard petition. It later considered an application from a civic group that said an earlier undertaking did not cover the entire project.

The tribunal’s immediate role was protective. It ordered that no trees be cut anywhere in the project until the matter is disposed of. The next hearing is December 15. The NGT’s order therefore pauses possible environmental damage while the dispute continues, without being a final decision on the project.

The project involves 1,128 trees marked for removal, according to the report that prompted the NGT’s attention. BDA Chairman N. A. Haris said the authority does not intend to fell all of them. Instead, it proposes to translocate 1,072 trees and cut the remaining trees.

The arithmetic leaves 56 trees that may still be felled: 1,128 total trees minus 1,072 planned for translocation. Translocation means moving trees rather than removing them permanently, although the article does not describe the method or survival results. The distinction matters because the BDA presents its plan as largely preserving the marked trees, while opponents continue to challenge the project’s tree impacts.

The figures are not yet an approved outcome. The NGT has ordered that no trees be cut anywhere in the project until the matter is disposed of. Also, the GBA’s public notice uses the broader word removal, and civic groups say only the Tree Expert Committee can decide. Thus, the final number cut remains unsettled.

The NGT issued a fresh order because the protection described in the earlier proceedings did not cover the full Hebbal Short Tunnel Project. During the original suo motu case, the Karnataka government said writ petitions were pending in the High Court and that the Advocate-General had undertaken that no trees would be cut. The NGT then disposed of that case.

Aranya, Parisara Mathu Havamana Badalavane, Sangha, Mangaluru, later identified a gap. The group told the tribunal that the undertaking applied to Lalbagh, even though it concerned the same project. It therefore sought a separate restraining order covering all project areas. Government counsel confirmed that the undertaking referred to a different area.

The NGT accepted that its original application generally covered the entire project and tree felling for it, then passed the Friday order. The result is a clearer project-wide restriction. No trees can be cut until the case is disposed of, with the next hearing set for December 15.

Tree translocation is the process of moving a living tree from one place to another. The aim is to retain the tree rather than remove it permanently. The article uses the term for the BDA’s proposal to move 1,072 trees affected by the Hebbal Short Tunnel Project.

Cutting down a tree is different because the tree is felled and no longer remains in its original living form. Translocation, by contrast, involves relocating the tree. The source does not explain how the BDA would carry out the moves, where the trees would go, or how many would survive. Those details therefore cannot be established from the article.

The distinction is central to the dispute. BDA Chairman N. A. Haris says the authority plans to translocate most marked trees and cut the rest. However, the GBA notice refers to the removal of trees, and civic groups challenge who can approve the decision. The NGT has paused all cutting for now.

The article presents a dispute over who can authorise tree removal for the Hebbal Short Tunnel Project. BDA Chairman N. A. Haris described the BDA’s plan to translocate 1,072 trees and cut the rest. Separately, a Greater Bengaluru Authority public notice referred to removing trees along Hebbal Main Road.

Civic groups opposing the project say neither announcement settles the matter. They argue that the decision can be taken only by the Tree Expert Committee. This means the groups distinguish between an implementing authority’s proposal or public notice and the body they believe has formal decision-making power over tree removal.

The source does not report a final legal ruling on that question. What is clear is that the NGT has temporarily blocked all tree cutting across the project. Therefore, regardless of the BDA’s plan or the GBA notice, no cutting can occur until the NGT disposes of the matter. The authority issue remains contested.

Urban road and tunnel projects often require environmental review because construction can affect existing trees and the surrounding urban environment. Review helps examine what may be removed, what could be preserved, and whether the proposed action follows the required decision process. When those questions are disputed, affected groups can seek legal intervention.

The Hebbal project shows how such a dispute can develop. A report said more than 70 tree species were among 1,128 trees marked for felling. The NGT took suo motu cognisance, while writ petitions were pending before the Karnataka High Court. Later, a civic group said a High Court undertaking applied only to Lalbagh, not the whole project.

That disagreement led the NGT to order that no trees be cut anywhere in the project until disposal. The BDA says it plans to translocate 1,072 trees and cut the rest, while civic groups say the Tree Expert Committee must decide. The next hearing is December 15, so project-related tree action remains paused.