Municipal orders to fell trees must explore non-destructive alternatives and satisfy requirements of a reasoned order.

The petitioner, owner of holding No. 3/H, Lelin Sarani, Serampore, challenged an order dated 10th February 2026 passed by the Chairman, Board of Councilors, Serampore Municipality

The dispute arose when a private respondent (Respondent No. 9) complained that the petitioner’s leaning coconut tree was damaging their property

Previously, in WPA 3806 of 2025, a Coordinate Bench directed the Municipality to resolve the matter under law, ensuring the safety of both the neighbor's property and the tree

Following a hearing, the Municipality ordered the removal of the tree

The petitioner challenged this order on grounds of lack of authority and lack of reasoning

1. Whether the Municipality lacked the authority to decide on the dispute regarding the leaning tree

2. Whether the impugned order of the Municipality directing the removal of the tree was sustainable in law and in line with previous judicial directions

The court primarily applied Section 328 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, which empowers the municipality to take action regarding structures or objects that are dangerous or interfere with public safety

The court relied on the principle of finality of judicial orders, noting that since the petitioner participated in the municipal proceedings directed by a Coordinate Bench without appealing that initial order, they could not later challenge the authority of the forum in a collateral proceeding

The court also applied the administrative law principle that orders must be reasoned and must strictly adhere to specific judicial mandates

The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the Municipality’s authority, observing that the proceedings were initiated per a Coordinate Bench's direction in a previous writ petition which remained unchallenged by the petitioner

The Court found the Municipality's order flawed because the previous judicial mandate (dated 28th November 2025) explicitly stated it should not be treated as a mandate to cut the tree and directed the Municipality to explore measures to save both the tree and the neighbor's property

The Court found the Municipality's decision to remove the tree "unreasoned" and "harsh," failing to explore alternatives such as the petitioner’s suggestion to tether the tree with rope to stabilize it

The order was found to be in violation of the specific directives issued by the Coordinate Bench

The petitioner was granted liberty to take remedial measures to stabilize the tree so it does not interfere with the private respondent's property; The Municipal authorities were directed to conduct a fresh inspection after six weeks with notice to all parties and pass a new decision strictly in accordance with the directives of the Coordinate Bench within four weeks thereafter