2004 (10) TMI 604 - SC - Indian Laws

Permission Not Required for Felling Trees in Non-Forest Private Plantations, SC Rules Against HC's Restrictions.

Sri Ram Saha Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.

The SC concluded that the HC erred in requiring permission under Sections 4-B and 4-C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, for felling trees in ... Maintenance and preservation of land u/s 4B - Permission for change of area, character, or use of land u/s 4C - Application of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Restrictions on felling of trees in non-forest private plantations - Interpretation of statutory provisions and legislative intent - Appellant is the owner of certain land classified as `Bagan' (garden) in the record of rights - HELD THAT:- 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 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. The High Court, being clear in its mind that the ban imposed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad [1996 (12) TMI 390 - SUPREME COURT]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 Supreme Court set aside the High Court's imposition of restrictions and conditions on the appellant for felling trees in non-forest private plantations. It clarified that no permission is required for felling trees in non-forest private plantations/orchards/bagans. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was modified accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Whether permission is required u/s 4-B read with Section 4-C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, for felling old trees in private orchards.2. Validity and correctness of the High Court's imposition of restrictions and conditions on felling trees in private orchards.Summary:Issue 1: Requirement of Permission u/s 4-B and 4-CThe primary question was whether the appellant needed permission u/s 4-B read with Section 4-C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, to fell old trees in his private orchard. The appellant argued that no such permission was required as the land was not forest land. The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 1228] had confined its observations and directions to forest lands. The High Court's imposition of restrictions and conditions was challenged on the grounds that there was no statutory provision requiring permission for felling trees in non-forest private plantations.Issue 2: Validity of High Court's Restrictions and ConditionsThe High Court allowed the appellant to fell trees but imposed conditions such as cutting one out of ten trees in two years, replacing each with new saplings, and providing one month's notice to the Collector. The High Court referenced Sections 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C of the Act, interpreting them to imply a need for permission for felling multiple trees as it might change the character of the land.Legal Analysis:The Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad were applicable only to forest lands. The term 'forest land' includes any land recorded as forest in government records irrespective of ownership. However, this did not extend to non-forest private plantations. Sections 4-B and 4-C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act did not require permission for felling trees in private orchards as long as the land's area, character, or use was not changed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in extending the scope of Sections 4-B and 4-C to require permission for felling trees in non-forest private plantations. The High Court's imposition of restrictions and conditions was set aside. The Court emphasized that no permission is required for felling trees in non-forest private plantations/orchards/bagans. The appeal was allowed, and the restrictions imposed by the High Court were invalidated.