Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere On Felling Of Trees For Helipad Construction; Directs NGT-Supervised Compensatory Afforestation
The Court held that the subject land has not been notified as an ecologically sensitive area, and this also does not fall within the definition of forest.
The Supreme Court has refused to halt the felling of Gaando Baawal (Prosopis juliflora) trees for a helipad project in Ahmedabad.
The instant appeal was filed against the judgment dated December 3 2025, passed by the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune, seeking prohibition of felling of Gaando Baawal trees for the construction of a HeliPad on "non-forest land".
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "In view of the fact that the subject land has not been notified as an ecologically sensitive area and this also does not fall within the definition of forest land so we are satisfied that the expert committee in its conclusive remarks has effectively addressed the cause flagged by the Appellant, whose representation to the NGT...What is just required to be done by the Appellant or some other genuine environmentalist is to ensure that the trees which are being cut to develop the Helipad are planted on some suitable piece of land. So, for this purpose, the Appellant will be well advised to move an application before the NGT who in turn may constitute a committee of experts, particularly from the forest department, to select the variety of trees, identify the land and see whether the condition of the land is suitable for such plantation. The NGP can ensure that adequate funds for the purpose of selection of the trees and their subsequent supervision are allocated, or such an exercise is undertaken by the forest department of the State Government. The NGT, to its supervisory committee, can ensure that the trees have actually been planted; thereafter, at least for a period of five years, the periodical reports regarding the mortality rate, if any or the appropriate growth of the trees should also be ideally observed and monitored."
The NGT held that the subject forest area does not require any prior permission and also does not warrant any environmental intervention.
Justice Kant said, "This tree does not require any plantation. It has a wild growth."
Counsel replied, "The airport is right there, so it's not as if there's no helipad available. The airport is next door. This is a forest planted 50-60 years ago. They're huge trees today. And even if you plant a hundred trees in place of one tree, the oxygen content is not the same."
Justice Kant said, "If this kind of plant, which is a wild growth. It doesn't require much labour...Nothing is required to be done...These are all very natural. That's a standard forest. A forest or no forest, it can grow anywhere...It's a plant which is in adverse weather. It doesn't require water. It doesn't require...It's a wild peaker."
The Appellant's case was that the subject area, where the helipad is being constructed, is flood-prone and the planted trees protect the area from submergence. The area is claimed to be part of the Sabarmati River floodplain ecosystem.
In the backdrop of these allegations, which were contained in a letter sent by the Appellant to the Chairperson of the NGT, a suo moto cognizance of the matter was taken and a joint committee was constituted on September 6, 2022, to inspect the site and submit a report.
The committee comprising experts found that i) the trees were on the land which were not included in any reserve forest category, ii) The trees were Gaando Baawal trees, which were are ordinarily a wild growth, iii) If the trees are to be cut, twice the number of such trees, shall have to be replanted, iv) The project was on government land and not part of the Sabarmati riverfront development boundary v) SPIAA had the environmental clearance authority and had cleared the riverfront project design.
On the strength of the Report of the expert committee, the Tribunal vide the impugned government has held that: 1. The subject land is not an ecologically sensitive area as no such notification has ever been issued by the competent authority; 2. Gaando Baawal trees on the survey land are a variety of trees that do not require prior permission for filing on non-pressed land.
Cause Title: Firdoss Cambatta v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [C.A. No. 258/2026]