Ahmedabad’s latest tree-planting instruction has exposed a conflict at the centre of urban greening: the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is promoting a large plantation campaign while also asking its garden department not to plant tall, dense-canopy trees near advertising hoardings. The explanation offered by the civic administration is that trees planted around hoardings can later be cut, creating disputes and penalties. But the decision raises a larger question about whether the city is managing trees as living public infrastructure or as obstacles within a commercial roadside system.
The instruction was reported by Nav Gujarat Samay – Ahmedabad on October 9, 2026. According to the report, Standing Committee chairman Kamleshbhai Patel said trees near hoardings should not grow too tall or develop dense canopies. He said the practice of planting large trees near hoardings, followed by their removal and the collection of penalties, should end. At the same time, he said strict action should be taken if anyone cuts a mature tree.
That distinction is important. The reported instruction does not formally permit the cutting of trees. Instead, it attempts to prevent a recurring conflict by changing the type of trees planted near hoardings. Yet the practical effect could be to make the commercial visibility of advertising structures a factor in deciding the scale and canopy of public trees. In a city where roadside land is already divided between traffic, footpaths, utilities, parking, vendors, access points and advertising infrastructure, the choice of species becomes a question of public-space priorities.
The report says the AMC collects lakhs of rupees every year in licence fees after permitting advertising hoardings on roads and footpaths in different parts of the city. This creates an institutional tension. The civic body is both a regulator of public space and a recipient of revenue from commercial structures placed in that space. When trees obstruct a hoarding, the issue is therefore not only horticultural. It involves the regulation of roadside advertising, the protection of municipal assets and the enforcement of tree-cutting rules.
The source report also refers to allegations that large, dense-canopy trees have been cut quietly from several roads and footpaths, particularly where they are considered an obstruction in front of commercial complexes or advertising hoardings. It says action is sometimes taken after such incidents become public or are brought to the attention of municipal authorities, but that critics have described some of these responses as largely demonstrative. These are allegations reported by the source and are not independently established in the supplied material. Their significance lies in the governance gap they point to: a tree-protection system is only effective when violations are detected, documented and acted upon consistently.
Ahmedabad’s current plantation campaign makes the contradiction sharper. The report says the city completed a Mission Five Million Trees drive that began on World Environment Day, June 5, with the aim of planting 50 lakh trees across different areas. The campaign’s closing event took place in the Bhadaj area, where Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel planted a tree on a grazing plot. The mayor, Hitesh Barot, said the campaign was conducted under the guidance of Union Home Minister and Gandhinagar Lok Sabha member Amit Shah as part of efforts to increase the city’s green cover.
The report further states that more than one lakh trees of different species are to be planted on the Bhadaj plot. It also says tree-planting activity will continue and that the municipality will take responsibility for maintaining the trees that have been planted. These figures indicate the scale at which the AMC is presenting its greening programme. They also show why the question of survival, canopy development and location matters as much as the number of saplings planted.
A plantation target is relatively easy to count. A functioning urban tree system is harder to measure. It requires knowing where trees are planted, which species are selected, how many survive, how quickly they mature, who maintains them and whether they remain protected when their branches occupy valuable or commercially visible space. The reported instruction concerning hoardings brings this difference into focus. Small or non-dense trees may help meet a planting count, but the source material does not establish whether they would provide the same shade, ecological function or long-term public benefit as mature canopy trees.
The institutional responsibilities described in the report are spread across several parts of the municipal system. The garden department is responsible for planting and maintaining trees. The Standing Committee provides political and administrative direction. Municipal officials regulate permissions and penalties, while the advertising system generates licence revenue. The report also refers to residents who seek trimming services and green-waste collection. These functions intersect on the same roads and footpaths, but the available account does not identify a single public framework that brings advertising permissions, tree protection, pruning, plantation and maintenance into one transparent system.
The AMC’s recently introduced trimming and green-waste collection policy is another part of this system. Patel said residents can apply online for the service and pay the prescribed charge. To avoid requiring residents to visit civic centres, the policy includes an online collection module allowing payment and receipt issuance at the site. He also said instructions had been issued to activate mobile-based online charge collection immediately so that residents would not face inconvenience.
This measure addresses service access rather than the hoarding dispute, but it reveals how urban tree management is experienced at street level. Residents interact with the municipality not only when trees are planted, but also when branches need trimming, green waste has to be removed or a tree becomes a perceived risk or obstruction. A tree policy therefore depends on operational details: who receives an application, who assesses the work, whether a receipt is issued, how much is charged and whether the work is recorded. The report provides details about the proposed digital payment process, but not about monitoring outcomes or enforcement records.
The central policy problem is that tree protection and plantation cannot be assessed only through isolated actions. Planting a tree in one location while allowing a mature tree to be removed elsewhere produces a different urban outcome from protecting an existing canopy and adding new trees in suitable spaces. Similarly, preventing dense trees from being planted near hoardings may reduce future disputes at those sites, but it does not resolve whether the hoarding itself is appropriately located or whether public footpath space should be organised around its visibility.
The source does not provide the number of hoardings, the area covered by advertising permissions, the amount of annual licence revenue, the number of trees removed, survival rates from the 50-lakh campaign or the penalties collected for illegal cutting. Without those figures, it is not possible to measure the scale of the trade-off or determine whether the new instruction is a broad municipal policy or a targeted operational direction. Those missing data points are important because they would allow citizens to compare the city’s stated greening ambition with the performance of its protection and enforcement systems.
The reported decision also highlights the difference between a tree as an object of plantation and a tree as part of public infrastructure. A mature roadside tree occupies space, changes the experience of a footpath and affects the visibility of nearby structures. Its value is not limited to the moment when it is planted. The source material does not quantify shade, temperature, air-quality or stormwater benefits, so no specific environmental outcome can be assigned here. It does, however, establish that the city is simultaneously pursuing a major green-cover campaign and managing commercial roadside uses that can come into conflict with tree growth.
For Ahmedabad, the next test will be whether these competing priorities are governed through clear records and consistent enforcement. The Standing Committee chairman’s reported position combines two commitments: avoiding tall, dense-canopy trees near hoardings and taking strict action against the cutting of mature trees. The relationship between those commitments will depend on how planting locations are selected, how hoarding permissions are reviewed, how violations are recorded and whether penalties deter future cutting.
The evidence currently confirms a policy conflict, not its final outcome. Ahmedabad has announced an ambitious plantation programme, introduced a digital service mechanism for trimming and green-waste collection, and issued a disputed instruction concerning tree species around advertising hoardings. What remains unclear is how many planted trees will survive, how mature trees will be protected, and whether commercial advertising permissions will continue to shape the design of the city’s green network. Those are the measures that will determine whether the campaign produces lasting urban cover or primarily a larger plantation count.
