9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 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. The High Court, being clear in its mind that the ban imposed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad [ 1996 (12) TMI 390 - SUPREME COURT] 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 achiev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
