Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5110 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Sri Ram Saha
RESPONDENT:
State of West Bengal & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/10/2004
BENCH:
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & B.N. SRIKRISHNA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Shivaraj V. Patil J.
The short question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is ‘whether any permission is required under
Sections 4-B read with Section 4-C of the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) by the owners of
the orchards to fell the old trees for replacing them by new
saplings having greater potential of yield’.
The appellant is the owner of certain land classified as
‘Bagan’ (garden) in the record of rights. Since old trees in
the land had been affected with uncontrollable worms and
had lost their fruit bearing ability, the appellant decided to
uproot them with an intention to renovate the garden by
planting high breed saplings. After he cut two to three
trees, the local police personnel and the Block Land
Reforms Officer prevented the appellant from further
felling, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. vs. Union of India &
Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 1228]. The appellant, in these
circumstances, approached the High Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 16280/1997 challenging the action of the
officers and seeking certain directions. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court referred the writ petition to the
Division Bench (Green Bench). By the impugned judgment,
the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ
petition permitting the appellant to fell trees standing in his
garden but subject to certain conditions and restrictions..
Hence, this appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the
validity and correctness of the impugned judgment
contending that to fell the trees within his garden land, the
appellant was not required to seek any permission under
Section 4-B read with Section 4-C of the Act.
The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments
reiterated the submissions that were made before the High
Court. He contended that in the absence of any provision in
the Act or any other legislation requiring the appellant to
take permission to fell tree in his garden land, admittedly it
being not a forest land and the High Court was not right
and justified in imposing certain restrictions and conditions
to fell the trees. He also brought to our notice the decisions
of the High Court dealing with similar issue. He added that
the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad (supra) could not be applied to the facts of
the case because the observations made and directions
given in that case relate and confine to forest lands.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents
made submissions supporting the impugned judgment.
In order to appreciate the respective contentions, it is
useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act:-_
"Section 4A. Certain restrictions on rights
of raiyats in Sadar, Kalimpong and
Kurseong sub-divisions of Darjeeling
district \026 (1) In the Sadar sub-division,
Kalipong sub-division and Kurseong sub-division
of the district of Darjeeling, the Collector of the
district may, from time to time, give directions
regarding the form of cultivation to be adopted
by a raiyat in respect of his plot of land or
prohibiting a raiyat from cutting more than one
tree from his plot of land except with the
previous permission in writing of the Collector or
such other officer as may be authorized by the
State Government in this behalf:
Provided that in giving directions as
aforesaid, the Collector shall follow such
procedure as may be prescribed.
(2) For contravention of any of the directions
given under sub-section (1), the Collector may,
after giving the defaulting raiyat an opportunity
to show cause against the action proposed to be
taken, impose upon him, by order, a fine not
exceeding one thousand rupees which, if not
duly paid, shall be recoverable as a public
demand.
(3) An appeal, if presented within thirty days
from the date of the order appealed against,
shall lie to the Commissioner against any order
passed by the Collector under sub-section (2)
and the decision of the Commissioner shall be
final.
4B. Maintenance and preservation of land \026
Every raiyat holding any land shall maintain and
preserve such land in such manner that its area
is not diminished or its character is not changed
or the land is not converted for any purpose
other than the purpose for which it was settled
or previously held except with the previous order
in writing of the Collector under Section 4C.
Provided that any raiyat may plant and
grow trees on any land held by him within the
ceiling area applicable to him and to his family
without any previous order under section 4C, if
such land is not cultivated by bargadar:
Provided further that without prejudice to
the provisions of Chapter IIB of the Act, the
provisions of this Section shall not apply to the
diminution in area or the change of character of
any land or the conversion of any land for any
purpose other than the purpose for which it was
settled or previously held, if such diminution or
change of character or conversion was made in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
accordance with the provisions of any law for the
time being force.
4C. Permission for change of area,
character or use of land \026 (1) A raiyat holding
any land may apply to the Collector for change
of area or character of such land or for
conversion of the same for any purpose other
than the purpose for which it was settled or was
being previously used or for alteration in the
mode of use of such land.
Explanation \026 For the purposes of this sub-
section, mode of use of land may be residential,
commercial, industrial, agriculture plantation of
tea, pisciculture, forestry, sericulture,
horticulture, public utilities or other use of land.
(2) On receipt of such application, the Collector
may, after making such inquiry as may be
prescribed and after giving the applicant or the
persons interested in such land or affected in
any way an opportunity of being heard, by order
in writing either reject the application or direct
such change, conversion or alteration, as the
case may be, on such terms and conditions as
may be prescribed.
(3) Every order under sub-section (2)
directing change, conversion or alteration shall
specify the date from which such change,
conversion or alteration shall take effect.
(4) A copy of the order passed by the Collector
directing change, conversion or alteration, if any,
under sub-section (2), or in an appeal therefrom
shall be forwarded to the Revenue Officer
referred to in Section 50 or section 51, as the
case may be, and such Revenue Officer shall
incorporate in the record-of-rights changes
effected by such order and revise the record-of-
rights in accordance with such order.
(5) If the Collector is satisfied that any land is
being converted for any purpose other than the
purpose for which it was settled or was being
previously held, or attempts are being made to
effect alteration in the mode of use of such land
or change of the area or character of such land,
he may, by order, restrain the raiyat from such
act."
By the impugned judgment, although the appellant is
permitted to fell trees standing in his garden land, as
already stated above, certain conditions and restrictions
were imposed. In the impugned judgment, it is stated that
the appellant is entitled to cut one out of ten trees in two
years and replace that one with new sapling. In case,
number of trees are less than ten, permission was granted
to cut one out of 5 but subject to condition that to cut one
tree, the appellant was required to replace with a new
sapling. It was further directed that the appellant will not
take recourse to felling of trees without giving one month’s
notice to the Collector stating therein all necessary
particulars and an undertaking to the effect that the new
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
saplings would be planted within one month of felling the
tree. The Collector was also empowered to inspect the
land, if so desired and to take appropriate action in case
either the impugned order or the provisions of Section 4 are
not complied with. In the impugned judgment, the Division
Bench also observed that the State Government should
consider enacting a comprehensive law as early as possible
on the felling of trees in non-forest areas keeping in view
the environmental concerns of the day.
This Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra)
was dealing with forests having regard to the provisions of
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short ‘the
Conservation Act’) and to the environmental and ecological
aspects of the matter, considering the possible effect due to
deforestation. In para 4 of the judgment, it is stated thus:-
"4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was
enacted with a view to check further
deforestation which ultimately results in
ecological imbalance; and therefore, the
provisions made therein for the conservation of
forests and for matters connected therewith,
must apply to all forest irrespective of the nature
of ownership or classification thereof. The word
"forest" must be understood according to its
dictionary meaning. This description covers all
statutorily recognised forests, whether
designated as reserved, protected or otherwise
for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest
Conservation Act. The term "forest land",
occurring in Section 2, will not only include
"forest" as understood in the dictionary sense,
but also any area recorded as forest in the
Government record irrespective of the
ownership. This is how it has to be understood
for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The
provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980 for the conservation of forest and the
matters connected therewith must apply clearly
to all forests so understood irrespective of the
ownership or classification thereof................"
Directions given under para 5, to the extent they are
relevant for the purpose, are extracted below:-
"1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest"
in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the
Central Government is required for any non-
forest activity within the area of any "forest". In
accordance with section 2 of the Act, all on-going
activity within any forest in any State throughout
the country, without the prior approval of the
Central Government, must cease forthwith.
..................................................................
2. ............................................................
3. ...........................................................
4. ........................................... This ban
will also not affect felling in any private
plantation comprising of trees planted in any
area which is not a forest."
In the said judgment, certain specific directions are
given to the States specified therein. Relevant directions
given for the State of Himachal Pradesh and the hill regions
of the States of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, to the
extent relevant, read as under:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
"1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in
any forest, public or private. This ban will not
affect felling in any private plantation comprising
of trees planted in any area which is not a
‘forest’; and which has not been converted from
an earlier "forest". .......................................
(2) ............................................................
(3) ............................................................
(4) .......................................................".
It is clear from the aforesaid judgment of this Court
that the observations made and directions given were in
relation to forest land. The term of "forest land" occurring
in Section 2 of the Conservation Act will not only include
"forest" as understood in the dictionary sense but also
includes any land recorded as forest in the Government
record irrespective of the ownership. It is also stated that
the provisions of the Conservation Act for the conservation
of forest and the matters connected therewith must apply
clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of ownership
or the classification thereof. By the directions given in the
said judgment, certain bans are imposed including a ban in
respect of felling of trees in forest, irrespective of the
nature of the forest, i.e. whether the forest is public forest
or private, reserved, protected or otherwise. It is clear
from the observations made and directions given in the
aforesaid judgment of this Court that though ban was
imposed in respect of undesirable activities in the forest
irrespective of the nature of the forest and its ownership
but such a ban did not affect felling of trees in any private
plantation in an area which is not a forest. Thus, it is clear
that the direction given by this Court is clearly confined to
felling of trees in forest land and the said ban was not
extended to non-forest private plantation. It is made clear
in the judgment that the directions given are to be
implemented notwithstanding any order at variance made
or which may be made by Government or any authority,
tribunal or court including the High Court. In the impugned
judgment, the High Court having referred T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad etc. (supra) of this Court, has stated thus:-
"In other words, the direction of the Supreme
Court regarding the application of ban on felling
of trees in forests and non-application of the
same in non-forest private plantations has to
prevail over any other deviating order even if
such order has been or is passed by the High
Court. It is however to be noticed here that
while the Supreme Court expressly recorded in
its direction about the non-application of the ban
in any non-forest private plantation, the
Supreme Court only nullified in clear words the
orders at variance which might have been or
might be passed by any Government, authority,
tribunal or court. The Supreme Court however
did not say nor purported to say that any
statutory or enacted law regarding non-forest
private plantation will not be given effect to."
In the impugned judgment, the High Court has clearly
stated that ban on felling of trees imposed by this Court
was only relating to trees in forest area and not to non-
forest private plantation and that any order contrary cannot
prevail. Having said so, the High Court went on to say that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
this Court did not direct that any statutory or enacted law
regarding non-forest private plantation will not be given
effect to. This legal position cannot be faulted but the High
Court committed an error in its application. Admittedly,
there is no statutory or enacted law which enabled the state
authorities either to take action for felling of trees in private
plantation not being forest and in the absence of any
requirement of any statutory enactment to take permission
for felling of tree in a private plantation, the High Court
could not have imposed restrictions and conditions as is
ultimately done in the impugned judgment while permitting
the appellant to fell the trees.
The Division Bench of the same High Court dealing
with a similar situation in M.A.T. No. 3681/97 in Md.
Mustafijur Rahman & Ors. Vs. The State of West
Bengal & Ors. having due regard to the decision of this
Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) held that
the ban on felling of trees would not affect felling in any
private plantation comprising trees planted in any area
which is not a forest. However, whether the land in that
case was a forest land or not was left to be decided by the
authorities. That was a case in which learned Single Judge
had taken the view that the restrictions with regard to the
forest imposed in the decision of T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad (supra) did not apply to the case as the lands
were recorded as orchard/garden in the record of rights.
However, in conclusion, the learned Single Judge imposed
certain restrictions with regard to removal of trees. In
appeal in M.A.T. 3681/97, the Division Bench of the High
Court passed the order as stated above.
Another Division Bench of the same High Court in Re:
Cutting of trees at Mankundu [1998 2 CLJ 119] passed
an order dated 15.7.1998 directing that there should be
total ban on felling of Mahua and Kendu trees and that
apart, no other tree should be cut or fell by anybody
without obtaining permission from the local authority
concerned or the District Forest Officers. This decision runs
contrary to the earlier Division Bench judgment in M.A.T.
3681/97 referred to above. Unfortunately, the decision of
the Division Bench in M.A.T. 3681/97 and the decision of
this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) were
not brought to the notice of the Division Bench while
deciding the case of Mankandu on 15.7.1998. In the
impugned judgment, the High Court itself has observed that
the directions given in Mankundu are inconsistent with the
directions given by this Court in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulkpad (supra) particularly where this Court had
specifically directed that its order was to operate and had to
be implemented notwithstanding any order made or that
may be made by any court or Government etc., which
might be at variance and that there was no scope for
issuing such directions in respect of non-forest private
plantation.
In Biswanath Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal
[1996 (II) CHN 407], a learned Single Judge of the High
Court considered a question whether the owner of an
orchard had any right to fell down trees standing there
which had become old and had lost their optimum fruit
bearing capacity. In the light of Sections 4-B and 4-C of
the Act, it was held that so long as area, user and character
of the land was not changed, the provisions of Section 4-B
as also the proviso thereto would not be attracted in a
given case. However, keeping in mind factors relating to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
the environment and ecological balance, the learned Single
Judge directed that the raiyat will not be entitled to cut
down all the trees in the orchard or garden at a time but
shall be entitled to cut once every two years and replace
the old, uneconomic and/or unproductive tree or trees in
the ratio of 1:10 on condition of replacing the same by new
sapling. The learned Judge also gave certain other
directions. It may be noted that this judgment was
delivered before this Court rendered decision in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra).
It is not in dispute that there is no enactment in the
State of West Bengal regarding felling of trees in non-forest
area. It is abundantly clear and unambiguous that the ban
imposed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad
(supra) would apply only to forest land irrespective of the
nature or classification or ownership of such forest land and
that the ban did not apply to non-forest private plantation.
In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High
Court also accepts this position. But the Division Bench
reading Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C and particularly reading
Sections 4-B and 4-C together took the view that Section
4-B of the Act definitely projects a bar against felling of
trees; it may not be in respect of felling of single tree; but
felling of a number of trees at a time may in particular
circumstances amount to changing nature and character of
land or the mode of its use and thereby attract provisions of
Sections 4-B and 4-C. It was further held by the High Court
that for felling of trees in non-forest private plantation,
definitely Section 4-B will be attracted and in that case,
such a felling cannot be done without obtaining permission
of the Collector under Section 4-C. Observations of the
High Court in this regard are :
"The learned Judge in the decision in Biswanath
Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) was of
the opinion that anticipated change of the
character and user of the lands comprising
orchards cannot be a ground for objecting to the
felling of the trees belonging to the owners in the
absence of any law prohibiting them from doing
so. In our opinion, however, the position
becomes rather different when sections 4B and 4C
are read together. The bar imposed by section 4B
is against changing the character of land or its
conversion for use for a different purpose without
the previous permission of the Collector. Cutting
of only one tree in an orchard may not by itself
change the nature and character of the land or
may not amount to conversion of the land for any
purpose other than the purpose for which it was
settled or was previously held. But felling of a
number of trees at a time may in particular
circumstances amount to changing the nature and
character of the concerned land and thereby
attract provisions of sections 4B and 4C. That
trees may have some bearing on the nature and
character of the land on which they are standing
or on the mode of its use is beyond doubt. This
gets exemplified by the first proviso to section 4B
which permits a raiyat to plant and grow trees on
his land without the previous order of the
Collector if such land is not cultivated by
Bargadar. A land which is used as cultivable land
may be converted into a different type by planting
quite a number of trees on it thereby replacing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
cultivation by afforestation. The proviso permits
afforestation or planting or growing of trees on
the land without any order of the Collector
although by doing so the nature and character of
the land or its user may be changed. But this is
not permitted if the land is under the cultivation of
Bargadar so that the Bargadar’s interest in the
matter of growing crops in that land and receiving
share thereof may not be jeopardized or affected.
This is one aspect of the matter. Similarly if an
orchard is cleared of the trees or a number of
trees are cut down without taking any measure to
protect and preserve the nature and the character
of the land, in that event section 4B and section
4C will be definitely attracted to such felling of
trees. It, therefore, cannot be said that there is
altogether no statutory provision imposing any
restriction on the felling of trees in non-forest
private plantation."
Section 4-A of the Act imposes certain restrictions on
rights of raiyats in Sadar, Kalimpong and Kurseong sub-
divisions of Darjeeling District. In these sub-divisions under
Section 4-A(1), the Collector of the District may, from time
tome, give directions regarding the form of cultivation to be
adopted by a raiyat in respect of his plot of land or prohibit
a raiyat from cutting more than one tree from his plot of
land except with the previous permission in writing of the
Collector or such other officer as may be authorized by the
State Government in this behalf. Under sub-section (2) of
the said Section, the Collector may take action against
defaulting raiyat for contravention of any of the directions
given under sub-section (1) and may impose fine upon him.
Under sub-section (3), an appeal is also provided against an
order made under sub-section (2). Thus, from Section 4-A,
it is clear that its application is confined to the three sub-
divisions of Darjeeling District only. When by legislation,
scope and application of Section 4-A is consciously confined
to the said three sub-divisions of Darjeeling District, court
cannot enlarge or extend its scope to the other lands in the
State of West Bengal situated in areas other than these
sub-divisions. An attempt to extend the scope and
application of Section 4-A to the area beyond the said three
sub-divisions amounts to courts assuming legislative
functions which is impermissible particularly when there is
no ambiguity or uncertainty as to the area to which Section
4-A applies. The said provisions cannot be read so as to
extend its application to other areas which legislature
consciously did not intend to do so. If the legislature
wanted to apply Section 4-A to the entire State of West
Bengal, it could have done so. On the other hand, the
legislature had expressly confined its application to the
three sub-divisions of Darjeeling District.
Section 4-B speaks of maintenance and preservation
of land. Under this Section, every raiyat holding any land is
obliged to maintain and preserve such land in such manner
that its area is not diminished or its character is not
changed or the land is not converted for any purpose other
than the purpose for which it was settled or previously held
except with the previous order in writing of the Collector
under Section 4-C. Under the first proviso to the said
Section, any raiyat may plant and grow trees on any land
held by him within the ceiling area applicable to him and to
his family without any previous order under Section 4-C, if
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
such land is not cultivated by bargadar. From plain reading
of this Section, it is clear that a raiyat cannot diminish area
of the land or change its character or cannot convert the
land for any purpose other than the purpose for which it
was settled without the previous order in writing of the
Collector. Felling of trees is not covered by this Section.
Mere felling of trees cannot be taken as diminishing the
area of the land or changing its character or converting it
for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was
settled. The first proviso shows that even a raiyat can plant
and grow trees in any land held by him within the ceiling
area if such land is not cultivated by bargadar.
Section 4-C deals with the permission for change of
area, character or use of land. Under this Section, a raiyat
holding any land may apply to the Collector for change of
area or character of such land or for conversion of the same
for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was
settled or was being previously used or for alteration in the
mode of use of such land. Explanation to sub-section (1) of
Section 4-C says that for the purpose of sub-section (1) of
Section 4-C, mode or use of land may be residential,
commercial, industrial, agriculture plantation of tea,
pisciculture, forestry, sericulture, horticulture, public
utilities or other use of land. In this view, permission of
the Collector is required under Section 4-C for the purpose
of change of area, character or use of land not for felling of
trees in private plantation. Mere felling of trees neither
diminishes the area nor changes the character or use of
land covered by explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 4-
C. Under Section 4-C(2), the Collector on receipt of
application from a raiyat for change of use of land,
conversion or alteration, as the case may be, pass an order.
Under sub-section (5) of the said Section, the Collector, if
satisfied that any land is being converted for any purpose
other than the purpose for which it was settled or attempts
are being made to effect alteration in the mode of use of
such land or change of the area or character of such land,
he may, by order restrain the raiyat from such act. Thus,
Collector has to satisfy himself about any contravention in
regard to conversion, change of use or change of area or
character of land before passing an order to restrain the
raiyat from such act. For any contravention of the
provisions of the Act, the Act itself has provisions to take
care of contravention, if any, under the Act. Thus, even
combined reading of Sections 4-B and 4-C of the Act does
not show that a permission of Collector is required to fell
trees in non-forest private plantation area/garden.
It is well-settled principle of interpretation that a
statute is to be interpreted on its plain reading; in the
absence of any doubt or difficulty arising out of such
reading of a statute defeating or frustrating the object and
purpose of an enactment, it must be read and understood
by its plain reading. However, in case of any difficulty or
doubt arising in interpreting a provision of an enactment,
courts will interpret such a provision keeping in mind the
objects sought to be achieved and the purpose intended to
be served by such a provision so as to advance the cause
for which the enactment is brought into force. If two
interpretations are possible, the one which promotes or
favours the object of the Act and purpose it serves, is to be
preferred. At any rate, in the guise of purposive
interpretation, the courts cannot re-write a statute. A
purposive interpretation may permit a reading of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
provision consistent with the purpose and object of the Act
but the courts cannot legislate and enact the provision
either creating or taking away substantial rights by
stretching or straining a piece of legislation.
This Court in The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.
Lucknow vs. M/s Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur
[(1975) 4 SCC 22] has taken the view that if the legislature
did not, after due application of mind, incorporate particular
provision, it cannot be imported into it by analogy,
observing that "An enactment being the will of the
Legislature, the paramount rule of interpretation, which
overrides all others, is that a statute is to be expounded
"according to the intent of them that made it".
Further in para 16 of the said judgment, this Court
has observed thus:-
"16. If the Legislature wilfully omits to
incorporate something of an analogous law in a
subsequent statute, or even if there is a casus
omissus in a statute, the language of which is
otherwise plain and unambiguous, the court is
not competent to supply the omission by
engrafting on it or introducing in it, under the
guise of interpretation, by analogy or
implication, something what it thinks to be a
general principle of justice and equity. To do so
"would be entrenching upon the preserves of
Legislature" (At p 65 in Prem Nath L Ganesh
v.Prem Nath, L. Ram Nath, AIR 1963 Punj 62,
Per Tek Chand, J.), the primary function of a
court of law being jus dicere and not jus dare."
Further para 23 of the same judgment reads:-
"23. We have said enough and we may say it
again that where the Legislature clearly declares
its intent in the scheme and language of a
statute, it is the duty of the Court to give full
effect to the same without scanning its wisdom
or policy, and without engrafting, adding or
implying anything which is not congenial to or
consistent with such expressed intent of the law-
giver; ....................................."
In Sankar Ram & Co. vs. Kasi Naicker & Ors.
[(2003) 11 SCC 699], this Court in para 7 has stated thus:-
"7. It is a cardinal rule of construction that
normally no word or provision should be
considered redundant or superfluous in
interpreting the provisions of a statute. In the
field of interpretation of statutes, the courts
always presume that the legislature inserted
every part thereof with a purpose and the
legislative intention is that every part of the
statute should have effect. It may not be correct
to say that a word or words used in a statute are
either unnecessary or without any purpose to
serve, unless there are compelling reasons to
say so looking to the scheme of the statute and
having regard to the object and purpose sought
to be achieved by it...................."
Thus, in the light of legal position explained in various
decisions, the High Court was not right in expanding the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
scope and application of Section 4-A so as to apply it to the
areas in the State of West Bengal other than the area
specified in three sub-divisions of Darjeeling District. When
the intention of the legislature is clear to confine its
application to the limited area, the court could not ignore it.
The High Court was also not right in reading something
more in Sections 4-B and 4-C in regard to the felling of
trees in the absence of any such legislative intention
expressed in these provisions. The court could not have
added something more to these Sections.
The High Court, being clear in its mind that the ban
imposed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) in the
matter of felling of trees did not extend to non-forest
private plantation and there being no State enactment
dealing with the felling of trees in non-forest private
plantation, in our view, was not right and justified in
reading in the provisions of Sections 4-B and 4-C that a
permission of the authorities is required for felling of trees
even in non-forest private plantation/orchard. The High
Court was also not correct in imposing further restrictions
and conditions on the appellant for felling trees in his
private non-forest garden land. The High Court in
impugned judgment itself has observed that the State
Government may consider the desirability of having enacted
a comprehensive law as early as possible regarding felling
of the trees in non-forest areas with a view to taking care of
environmental necessities of the time. If the provisions of
Section 4-B read with Section 4-C of the Act serve such a
purpose and if the High Court was clear in that regard,
there was no reason to make such a observation. Nothing
prevents the State Government to enact law in this regard
but in the absence of such a law and till law is enacted in
that regard, the High Court was not right in imposing
restrictions as is done in this case in regard to felling of
trees.
The question set out above in the beginning of this
judgment is answered in the negative.
In the result, the impugned judgment so far it
relates to imposition of restrictions and conditions on the
appellant for felling the trees cannot be sustained and they
are set aside. To make the position clear, we state that no
such permission is required for felling trees in the non-
forest private plantation/orchard/bagan. The appeal is
allowed accordingly in the above terms. No costs.