The ban on felling of trees imposed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India was limited to forest land and did not extend to non-forest private plantation. The absence of statutory law regarding felling of trees in non-forest areas precluded the imposition of restrictions and conditions by the High Court.

Judgment

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.- The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is "whether any permission is required under Section 4- Bread 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".

2. The appellant is the owner of certain land classified as "bagan" a (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 v. Union of India1 The appellant, in these circumstances, approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 16280 of 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.

3. 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 trees in his garden land, admittedly it being not a forest land, 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 Thirumulkpad1 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.

4. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned judgment.

5. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, it is useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act:

"4-A. Certain restrictions on rights of raiyats in Sadar, Kalimpong and Kurseong subdivisions of Darjeeling district.-(1) In the Sadar subdivision, Kalimpong subdivision and Kurseong subdivision 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 authorised 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.

4-B. Maintenance and preservation of lan