724 trees cut for houses, golf course; Cidco says plots not under litigation
MUMBAI: Despite efforts by environmentalists to stop the cutting of trees in a proposed residential complex and golf course in Seawoods, Navi Mumbai, all 724 trees were hacked by the City Industrial Development Corporation Ltd’s (Cidco) contractor between Sunday and Monday.
Protestors said bouncers were stationed outside the plot to stop them from gathering at the site which local residents claim is a wetland.
Cidco’s tree authority granted permission to its contractor on December 11, 2019 to cut 724 trees, transplant five, and retain 13 trees across two plots. “The two plots [D and E] are not under litigation before the Bombay HC or the SC where the residential complex will be built. Trees permitted to be felled have been removed from the site and afforestation measures have commenced,” said a senior Cidco official requesting anonymity.
Local resident Sunil Agarwal, who has petitioned the Mumbai high court (Hc)against the tree felling, said he will be filing a contempt petition in the Supreme Court (SC) which is slated to hear the matter on Tuesday.
Cidco plans to develop 17 buildings and an 18-hole golf course on the plot. While the project was proposed in 2002 by Cidco, plans were developed after the Maharashtra government issued a notification on October 5, 2016, which changed the land use of the ar e a under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act for construction of the project across 67 of 80 hectares.
After local residents moved the HC in 2017 against the change of land use from a green zone to residential, a division bench of the HC on November 1, 2018, put a stay on state government’s notification. On July 19, 2019, the SC removed the stay imposed by the HC on the state’s notification. In subsequent hearings, petitioners submitted details about all plots recognised as wetlands by the forest department and will be submitting more details during the next hearing.
“Our petition stated that all plots are under litigation. Permission was never given to the builder to commence construction by the SC,” said Agarwal.