RAM SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any permission is required under Section 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 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 (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 Thiru-mulkpad etc. vs. Union of India and others (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.

(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 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. Goda-varman 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.