TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being force. 4C. Permission for change of area, character or use of land (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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 notwiths ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave 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................ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
