Back
1998 Supreme(Cal) 527
High Court Of Calcutta
GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY
SRIRAM SAHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 16280 (W) Of 1998
Decided On : 12/18/1998
DIPAK SAHA, DIPTI BHATTACHARYA, GITA MUKHERJEE, KALYANI SAHA, M.C.Das, PRADIP DUTTA, RAM DULAL MANNA, S.K.GOLAM GOUS, Sandip Ghosh, SANJOY CHAKRABORTY, Tapan Dutta Gupta
The ban on felling trees imposed by the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, did not apply to felling of trees in non-forest private plantations.
Headnote:
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT - BAN ON FELLING TREES - EXCEPTION FOR NON-FOREST PRIVATE PLANTATIONS - WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS ACT - RESTRICTION ON FELLING TREES IN NON-FOREST PRIVATE PLANTATIONS - GUIDELINES FOR FELLING TREES IN ORCHARDS AND GARDENS - DESIRABILITY OF COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION ON FELLING OF TREES IN NON-FOREST AREAS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who owns a raiyati land recorded as a garden in the records of right, sought a direction to the respondents not to prevent him from felling down some of the existing trees on his land, which were unproductive mango trees. The petitioner's contention was that the land was never a forest and that the ban on felling trees imposed by the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, did not apply to his land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the ban on felling trees imposed by the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, did not apply to felling of trees in non-forest private plantations. However, the court also held that Section 4b of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, imposed a restriction on the felling of trees in non-forest private plantations in such number and in such manner as may change the nature and character of the land or its user.
Issues: Whether the ban on felling trees imposed by the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, applied to non-forest private plantations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ban on felling trees imposed by the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, did not apply to felling of trees in non-forest private plantations. However, the court also held that Section 4b of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, imposed a restriction on the felling of trees in non-forest private plantations in such number and in such manner as may change the nature and character of the land or its user.
Final Decision: The court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to fell down trees standing on his garden within the limits of the norms regarding the ratio and periodicity mentioned above with an undertaking to replace the trees by new saplings to be planted within one month of the felling of trees. He will however not take recourse to cutting of trees without giving one months notice to the Collector stating therein all necessary particulars and recording the necessary undertaking as mentioned above.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondent authorities not to prevent the petitioner from felling down some of the existing trees numbering 14 standing on his raiyati land which has been recorded in the records of right under the classification Bagan (garden ). It is the petitioner' case that at no point of time the said land was a forest of any nature and the same has never been converted from an earlier forest. It is the further case of the petitioner that the concerned trees intended to fell down are unproductive mango trees and they are very old trees and have lost their fruit-bearing ability and the petitioner has been incurring heavy financial loss every year and the trees have been affected with parasites and other uncontrollable worms so much so that any further standing of the trees would jeopardise the furit-bearing ability of the other adjacent trees and they are urgently needed to be uprooted and accordingly, the petitioner has decided to cut down the said affected unproductive old trees of the garden for renovation of the garden by plantation of saplings therein. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the recent Supreme Court decision governing the matter the petitioner started to fell down the unproductive trees of his said raiyati land in August, 1998 but after he cut down two or three trees the local police personnel and the local BLLRO prevented the petitioner from doing so on the plea that there is a complete ban on falling of the trees on any land. Being aggrieved by the such action on the part of the respondents the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
( 2 ) IT is inter alia submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228 and also the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 6-2-98 in M. A. T. No. 3681 of 1997 (Md. Mustafizur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal) which followed the said Supreme Court decision no ban can be imposed on the felling of trees on his own raiyati land by the petitioner. On the other hand the learned Advocate for the respondents refers to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Re: Cutting of Trees at Mankundu, (1998) 2 Cal LJ 119 and the Single Bench decision in Biswanath Kumar v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 2 Cal 407.
( 3 ) NOW let us consider the matter in its proper perspective. The Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228 observed in para 4 thereof that the word 'forest' must be understood according to its dictionary meaning and this description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of S. 2 (i) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and that 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 and this is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that the provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. The Supreme Court then passed several directions in the said decision. Some of the directions of the Supreme Court which are considered relevant for our present purpose are quoted below :-"general :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 appro
