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.