The Chevella Banyans, nearly 900 trees that date back to the Nizam era and are located between Moinabad and Manneguda, are safe from being cut down for now. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to keep its project of expanding a 45-kilometre stretch of National Highway 163 from two to four lanes on hold until it revises the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study.
Setting aside the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC)’s recommendations for the project, NGT said in its March 25 order, “The aforementioned matters pertain to the failure to prevent the felling or translocation of the Banyan Trees, as well as the subversion of the process for evaluating the environmental impact of the project, in violation of the EIA Notification, 2006”.
In its November 2023 order, the Tribunal ordered NHAI to conduct an EIA study to minimise the loss of trees and directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to issue terms of reference (ToR) and complete the process within four months. The Tribunal also recognised the ecological importance of the Banyan trees, and the presence of a large number of such trees along a single stretch was a rare phenomenon that required special consideration.
After the November 2023 order, EAC imposed certain conditions, such as the translocation of 522 Banyan trees, while retaining 393 of them. The committee said 50 trees could be saved by modifying the median width at select locations, while the translocated trees could be moved to Mudimyal Reserve Forest, in consultation with the State Forest Department. It waived the condition of the public hearing requirement, citing the absence of additional land acquisition.
Petitioners against NHAI project
Since 2019, the proposed highway expansion has sparked resistance from environmentalists and activists, who argue that these trees are irreplaceable.
The Save Banyans of Chevella, a group of nature lovers and environmental activists who moved NGT, said the Tribunal drew attention to the fact that only 6 of the 522 banyan trees proposed to be translocated have a girth size, which falls within the range prescribed for translocation.
The group said the Tribunal also mentioned that “previous instances of translocation of large Banyan trees in India have had poor survival rates”. The Tribunal, they said, stated that EIA does not address the ecological significance of the Banyan trees in supporting biodiversity, and does not specify targeted mitigation measures to address the impact on the fauna due to translocation or felling.
Story continues below this ad
“NHAI has a lot of work to do if they still want to push through with the project,” said one of the activists.
‘EIA report suffers from deficiencies’
NHAI has reportedly not presented any alternative alignment that would have circumvented the Banyan trees, despite the existence of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) circulars on this matter.
“The failure to do so also vitiates the entire process,” the Tribunal noted in its latest order.
It added that EIA does not give any clarity on the selection criteria for trees to be translocated and those that would be retained. “The lack of post-translocation monitoring mechanisms also raises concerns about the long-term impact of this approach. Therefore, as argued by the applicants, even if the transplanted stump were to survive, the question is whether the ecological services and benefits of this stump, which has to regrow into a huge tree, can be equated with the benefits that would accrue if the Banyan trees were left undisturbed,” it stated.
Story continues below this ad
NGT also found fault with EIA for failing to document the presence of heronry trees along the project route. “This omission is critical because such trees are known to serve as breeding grounds for protected bird species, and their removal without proper identification constitutes a violation of the ToR issued,” it stated.
“It is evident that the EIA report under challenge suffers from deficiencies. The failure to explore alternative alignments, inadequate consideration of translocation viability, lack of identification of trees with a heronry, and premature recommendation without the Zoological Survey of India (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 NGT order stated.