NGT orders further study to save Chevella Banyans, keeps EAC’s recommendation at abeyance

The banyans are nearly 100 years old, planted during the Last Nizam’s time. The National Highways Authority of India’s (NHAI) is planning widening this stretch.
| Photo Credit: NAGARA GOPAL

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has received yet another setback with regard to the proposed expansion of the National Highway-163 on Tuesday, when the National Green Tribunal kept in abeyance, the recommendation by the Environmental Appraisal Committee for the project, till a comprehensive study is conducted to save the banyan trees lining the road in Chevella.

In what could serve as a precedent for many such future cases, the final order pertaining to a petition by city-based nature lovers — Tejah Balantrapu, Pranay Juvvadi and Natasha Ramaratnam — mentioned several lacunae in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and the NHAI’s adherence to its earlier order.

Prominent among the concerns raised by the petitioners and agreed to by the court, is absence of public hearing which is part of the EIA process. The NGT had ordered an EIA in response to a previous petition by the three.

The tribunal noted that the EIA Notification, 2006, mandates public hearing except in case of expansion of roads and highways which do not require land acquisition. While NHAI contended that it did not require any further land acquisition, the bench rejected the contention and pointed out that it had acquired land earlier and it was one of the reasons for the NHAI to refuse to consider the alternative arrangement. Once land acquisition is involved, the exemption from public hearing is not applicable, it ruled.

Also pointing out that the EIA recommendation was granted before the biodiversity assessment report by the Zoological Survey of India was furnished as mandated by the tribunal in its earlier order, the Southern bench of the tribunal said acceptance of the EIA report before submission of ZSI report suggested that the approval process was premature and not based on a complete and rigorous evaluation of the environmental impact.

Citing a circular issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways which favoured greenfield alignments in order to avoid felling of standing avenue trees, the tribunal pointed out that the pre-feasibility for this project did not contain any greenfield alignment in compliance with the guidelines. The NHAI has failed to produce any alternative alignment to avoid the banyan trees in compliance with the MoRTH circular, and this vitiates the entire process, the order said.

Referring to the NHAI’s proposal to translocate 522 banyan trees, the bench said only six among them were small enough in girth to be transplanted, and noted that the translocation of large banyan trees in India had poor results. Yet the EIA did not provide any studies or success rate data to support this measure.

Citing EAC’s recommendations which said that almost 1/4th of the trees proposed for retention would provide space for heronry and other bird species, the court said the EIA failed to document the presence of such trees along the whole project route inclusive of the trees proposed for translocation.

Also questioned was the NHAI’s disregard for the recommendations by the sub-committee constituted by the EAC, which suggested saving the heritage banyan trees and acquiring additional land on either side of the road in order to avoid removal of trees.

NHAI proposed to translocate 85 of the 185 banyan trees from the stretch mentioned by the sub-committee which had very old banyan trees with heritage value, the order noted.

“The failure to explore alternative alignments, inadequate consideration of translocation viability, lack of identification of trees with heronry and premature recommendation without the ZSI study all indicate that the project proponent has not fully complied with the environmental due diligence expected in a matter of this ecological magnitude,” the order said.