03-07-2025
Maharashtra government withdraws amended bill to hike illegal tree felling fine
Mumbai: State govt on Wednesday withdrew an amendment proposing a 50-time hike in penalty for illegal felling of trees and not recognising the cutting of branches as an offence.
Forest minister Ganesh Naik moved the motion to withdraw the bill to amend the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act of 1964, which proposed to increase the penalty for illegal tree felling from Rs 1,000 to Rs 50,000, in the legislative assembly.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Naik said state govt would speak to tree experts and a new bill would be introduced after a cabinet discussion on the issue.
In 2024, govt had introduced the amendment bill to impose a hefty fine of Rs 50,000 on any person or party found guilty of felling trees without obtaining prior permission from the authorities concerned. Govt also got powers to forfeit the tools, vehicles, and materials used in felling and removing trees.
The law was to extend to the whole of Maharashtra, excluding urban areas. However, environmentalists were sceptical about the enforcement of the rule.
"According to the current law, it is not that trees cannot be cut down, only permission has to be taken. So, why is the forest minister asking to withdraw this bill?" asked BJP MLA Sudhir Mungantiwar, who was state forest minister when the amendments were made in 2024. "Global warming is a worldwide phenomenon.
Also, there is this kind of competition in every village to cut down trees," he pointed out.
Naik replied in the assembly: "In this bill, even cutting branches is like cutting down a tree and attracts if farmers cut down a tree unknowingly, there was a fine of Rs 50,000. This bill is not being withdrawn to benefit someone. Also, there is no doubt about Sudhir Mungantiwar's intentions. But, the amendment bill is being withdrawn temporarily.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
We will bring a law with new changes."
Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Bhaskar Jadhav supported govt's decision to withdraw the amendment, saying there were neither any differentials between urban and rural areas in the bill, nor a separation between trees on private land and on forest land.
