Trees misidentified, misjudged, wrongly marked and felled to facilitate civil projects in Hyderabad

Grave irregularities mark the tree felling/translocation permissions accorded by the Hyderabad Tree Protection Committee, as discovered in two sample cases of field inspection, respectively at Falaknuma and Cherlapally railway stations, casting a deep shadow on the whole process.

Healthy trees with woody stems and high survival rate marked for felling, dead trees or trees with no canopy permitted for translocation, wrong marking of trees on the ground, and multiple trees marked with the same number: these are only a few examples of how careless and compromised the Forest department is in granting permissions for tree felling/translocation in the age of aggravating climate crisis.

In the first instance, a rain tree which had anchored itself on the Falaknuma railway over bridge years ago, and grown with full canopy, was marked for translocation by the Tree Protection Committee to make way for the Metro Rail expansion project. Uprooting the tree means demolition of the flyover, yet this detail escaped the notice of the members who reportedly conducted field inspections before according permissions.

A rain tree anchored on Falaknuma railway bridge is recommended for translocation to facilitate Metro Rail expansion. | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

On the same stretch, the letter ‘T’ is painted in red on a row of median palm trees, indicating translocation. Several of them are bare trunks devoid of crown, and practically dead, which makes them unlikely candidates for translocation. The rationale for translocation was not explained, and attempts to reach the forest officials have failed.

In the second, more flagrant instance, the proposed access road to Charlapally Railway Station by Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC) is replete with glaring errors in identification of species and their demarcation, besides absolute callousness in execution. For this project, a total 2,519 trees are going, of which a whopping 1,883 are permitted to be felled, and 636 are to be translocated.

Several copper pod trees with thickly wooded trunks were hacked and piled in an open forested plot, where trees with negligible girth, and even dead trees were tied with a red ribbon isolating them for translocation. Their number and species do not match with the permission accorded by the TPC even in a single instance. Several such anomalies could be observed with regard to the avenue trees too.

A thick and healthy copper pod tree is axed down, but several trees much smaller in the background are tied with ribbons for translocation at Cherlapally | Photo Credit: Swathi Vadlamudi

For instance, the avenue tree with the number 158 is marked for translocation on the permission copy, with the species was mentioned as ‘China Are’. On the ground, it is a dead tree with no canopy at all.

The trees with the numbers 160 and 161 painted on them are ‘Moduga’ (Flame of the Forest) and ‘Vepa’ (Neem) respectively on the ground, while it is reverse on the paper. There were two trees painted with the number 39-- one Peepal and another Mango-- while on paper, the number is associated with a mango tree marked for felling. The reason mentioned was termite infestation, but the tree is found in a healthy condition.

Most glaring instance is the tree with the number 141, which is mentioned as ‘Subabul’ in the permission copy, with a recommendation for felling on the grounds of termite infestation. Upon field inspection, the tree with the same number turned out to be a large peepal with close to two metre girth and vast canopy.

A large peepal tree, perfect in health, is misidentified as Subabul and recommended for felling at Cherlapally | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

At several locations, ‘damaged bark’ and ‘termite infestation’ alternated in a row as reasons for felling, indicating a mechanical approach to permissions, without ground truthing.

“There is no transparency in tree felling permissions. They should be public documents, but are shared only when applied for through RTI. What is stopping them from displaying mandal wise list of permissions on the Forest department’s website?” questions Uday Krishan Peddireddi from Vata Foundation.

Vata Foundation typically strives to save and translocate trees facing the axe for public utility projects and individual exigencies. Uday Krishna, who maintains a WhatsApp group of 200-plus citizens willing to adopt the trees, terms the TPC permissions a ‘scam’, and expresses doubts about their execution.

This Semal tree is misidentified as Sissoo, and recommended for felling citing damaged bark at Cherlapally | Photo Credit: Swathi Vadlamudi

“Forest department is hell bent on felling trees, irrespective of the fact that there are a large number of people willing to adopt them. I suspect that the wood sale proceeds are the reason behind it. That explains the wrong demarcation of trees on the ground too, with large woody trees misrepresented and marked for felling,” he says.

Mr.Uday Krishna addressed a letter to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, highlighting the anomalies in the Cherlapally case, and seeking permission for translocation of the trees marked for felling. However, a large number of trees amenable to translocation have already been felled.

Forest department field officials, when sought their version, fumbled for words. They have no explanation for the wrong demarcation of species, nor for dead trees marked for conservation. They even failed to provide the names of the TPC members who carried out the field inspection.

The dry and desiccated tree is marked for translocation at Cherlapally | Photo Credit: Swathi Vadlamudi

A photo of the inspection team they produced, does not fully match with the signatures on the permission copy. Rao Chelikani from United Federation of Residents’ Welfare Association and M.Veda Kumar from Forum for Better Hyderabad, who signed on the field inspection report and permission copy, were not on the inspection team. Instead of one member from U-FERWAS as provided for by the government order constituting the TPC, there were two on the inspection team. Besides, the order confines the committee to Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy district while Cherlapally is in Medchal-Malkajgiri district, which is outside the committee’s purview.