AMRAVATI: A dispute has erupted in an Amravati enclave after trees and plants maintained by a corner-house owner were removed during a municipal drive to clear the right of way, with the owner alleging illegal action and selective targeting and municipal officials saying the work was part of a court-compliance exercise to remove encroachments.
Owner alleges illegal uprooting, officials cite court directions
The corner-house owner, identified as Gurdeep Singh, said the removal of vegetation from a green area adjoining his property was carried out without a court order and without making relocation arrangements. "There is no court order to uproot trees. The authorities should have planned their relocation first," Singh said, according to reporting.
District town planner officials denied the allegations of selective targeting. They said the action formed part of an ongoing drive to clear the right of way and to ensure pedestrian movement was not obstructed. Officials said encroachments across the township were being removed in a phased manner in compliance with court directions.
"All encroachments are being removed phase-wise," an official said.
The matter highlights a common urban conflict between individual household maintenance of green patches and municipal obligations to keep public ways unobstructed. In this instance, the dispute centres on whether the plot in question was private amenity space attached to the corner property or an area that interfered with pedestrian movement.
- Owner's position: The vegetation was maintained by the corner-house owner; removal was illegal without court order and relocation planning.
- Officials' position: Removal was part of a phased encroachment-clearance drive to comply with court directions and to clear obstructions to pedestrians.
- Status: Action taken during a right-of-way clearance operation; authority maintained the removals are being done in phases.
Local residents and civic groups often face uncertainty in such cases, since ownership and maintenance of small green patches—especially at corner plots—may be informal. The district town planner's statement indicates the civic administration is following a court-mandated timetable to remove encroachments, but the report does not specify whether any notice was served to the property owner before the removal took place.
| Party | Claim |
|---|---|
| Gurdeep Singh (corner-house owner) | Removal illegal; no court order; selective targeting; relocation should have been planned |
| District town planner officials | Part of ongoing drive to clear right of way; encroachments removed phase-wise; action in compliance with court directions |
For Amravati residents, the incident raises practical questions about how the municipality will distinguish legitimate private landscaping from unlawful encroachment on public footpaths and service corridors. It also underlines the importance of clear communication by civic agencies when actions affect neighbourhood greenery.
Urban tree removal can be sensitive, touching on environmental concerns as well as pedestrian safety and civic law. While the town planner's office has framed the operation as compliance with court directions, the owner's insistence on the absence of a court order suggests the episode could move towards formal legal contestation unless the parties reach a resolution or the municipality provides documented notice and rationale for the removal.
Residents seeking clarity should request copies of the court order the officials refer to and any notices served to property owners. The phased approach described by the district town planner indicates further actions are likely across the township, so similar disputes may arise at other corner houses or privately maintained green patches.
Local civic groups and environment-conscious residents in Amravati will be watching how the administration balances pedestrian accessibility, legal compliance and protection of neighbourhood greenery in the coming weeks.
