Statutory limits on tree felling in private orchard land cannot be expanded beyond clear land-use provisions.

Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 were construed as not imposing a general permission requirement for felling trees in a non-forest private orchard or garden land. Section 4-A was held to be territorially confined to the specified Darjeeling sub-divisions, Section 4-B to preservation against diminution or conversion of land, and Section 4-C to changes in area, character, use or mode of use, not mere tree felling. The restrictions in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad were treated as limited to forest land. The decision also reaffirmed that clear statutory text cannot be expanded by purposive interpretation.

---

---

Issues: Whether permission was required under Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for felling trees in a non-forest private orchard or garden land.

Analysis: Section 4-A is confined by its express terms to the Sadar, Kalimpong and Kurseong sub-divisions of Darjeeling district and cannot be extended to other areas by interpretation. Section 4-B requires maintenance and preservation of land so that its area is not diminished, its character is not changed, and it is not converted to another purpose; mere felling of trees in a private orchard does not by itself amount to such diminution, change of character, or conversion. Section 4-C deals with permission for change of area, character, use, conversion, or alteration in the mode of use of land, and does not create a general requirement of permission for felling trees in a non-forest private plantation. The restrictions in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad were confined to forest land and did not extend to non-forest private plantations. The Court also reaffirmed that a court cannot add to or rewrite a statute under the guise of purposive interpretation where the legislative text is clear.

Conclusion: Permission under Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C was not required for felling trees in the appellant's non-forest private orchard or bagan, and the restrictions imposed by the High Court could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to fell trees in the non-forest private plantation without obtaining prior permission, and the impugned restrictions were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute does not expressly require permission for felling trees in a non-forest private plantation, courts cannot enlarge narrowly worded land-preservation provisions to impose such a restriction, especially when the statutory text confines the relevant regulatory provision to a limited territorial area or to conversion of land use rather than mere tree felling.

---