The Aizawl bench of the Gauhati High Court has intervened to protect the ecological and historical landscape of Mizoram’s capital, issuing an interim stay on the felling of trees in the Lammual area. The site, recently vacated by the Assam Rifles, is currently at the center of a dispute between state development goals and environmental preservation.
On Monday, a division bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami halted the Mizoram government’s plan to clear nearly 200 trees in the Lammual area of Aizawl. Responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the court noted that many of the targeted trees are over a century old and reside on land featuring structures designated as heritage. The court has demanded a detailed explanation from the state regarding the necessity of removing these historic trees for urban development.
The conflict arose following infrastructure plans announced last month by Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation Minister K. Sapdanga. The state government intended to utilize the prime land vacated by the Assam Rifles to address Aizawl’s persistent traffic issues, specifically by widening the nearly 1 km stretch between Treasury Square and Bazar Bungkawn—one of the city’s busiest corridors.
While the government had formed an advisory committee led by Chief Minister Lalduhoma to oversee the strategic use of the land, environmental groups raised alarms over the scale of the environmental impact. The state’s plan involved preserving specific historical landmarks like the Quarter Guard and Loch House while demolishing other structures and clearing vegetation to make way for modern public spaces and road expansions.
The PIL was filed by environmental activist Siazampuii Sailo on behalf of the Centre for Environment and Social Justice. The petitioner highlighted media reports indicating that 174 out of 400 trees on the site were slated for felling.
During the hearing, the court took significant note of the site’s history, observing that structures in the barrack area date back to 1897. The bench emphasized that the state must justify the destruction of “century-old trees in the heart of the city,” given their heritage and environmental value.
Representing the state, Additional Advocate General P. Bhattacharyya presented submissions alongside advocate TJ Mahanta, who appeared for the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the court issued the restraining order to prevent further felling until the case can be examined more thoroughly.
The interim stay remains in place until the next scheduled hearing on May 18. The state government is expected to provide a comprehensive response detailing its development roadmap and explaining why the removal of the heritage trees is considered essential for the project.
