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.