SRI RAM SAHA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 14-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI RAM SAHA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 14, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, I 99 5 
Section 4-A-Scope and application of-It is Confined to three Sub-
divisions of Darjeeling District named therein-Court cannot expand its C 
scope to other lands in the State of West Bengal. 
Section 4-B and 4-C-Felling of trees in private non-forest garden 
lands-Held; It does not amount to diminishing the area of the land or 
changing its character or converting it for any purpose other than the 
purpose for which it was settled-In that view, Sections 4-B and 4-"C were D 
inapplicable and permission of Collector was not required for felling of trees 
in such lands. 
Interpretation of statutes-Purposive interpretation-In the guise of 
purposive interpretation courts cannot re-write a statute either creating or 
taking away substantial rights by stretching or straining a piece of legislation. E 
The appellant is owner of private non-forest garden fands. He wanted to 
uproot certain old trees therein which were affected with uncontrollable worms 
and replace them with high breed sapling. However, he was prevented from 
doing so by local police personnel and Block Land Reforms Officer. He filed 
a writ petition challenging the action of the officers. A Division Bench of the F 
High Court, interpreting Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C of West Land Reforms 
Act, 1955 held that felling a number of trees at a time may in particular 
circumstances amount to changing the nature and character of land or the 
mode of its use. It was further held that felling of trees in non-forest private 
plantation attracted Section 4B and such felling cannot be without permission G 
of Collector under 4C. Accordingly appellant was permitted to fell trees but 
subject to certain conditions and restrictions. Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that in absence of any provision in the Act or any 
other legislation requiring the appellant to take permission to fell trees in 
459 
H 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A his non-forest garden land, the High Court was not justified in imposing 
restrictions and conditions. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no statutory or enacted law which enabled the state 
B authorities either to take action for felling of trees in private plantation not 
being forest and that in the absence of any requirement of any statutory 
enactment to take permission for felling of tree in a private plantation, the 
High Court could not have imposed restrictions and conditions as is ultimately 
done in the impugned judgment while permitting the appellant to fell the trees. 
c 
(467-G] 
1.2. When by legislation, the scope and application of Section 4-A is 
consciously confined to three sub-divisions of Darjeeling District, the court 
cannot enlarge or expand its scope to other lands in the State of West Bengal 
situated in areas other than these sub-divisions. An attempt to extend the scope 
D and application of Section 4A 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 uncertainly as to the area to which 
Sections 4A applies. The said provisions cannot be read so as to extend its 
application to other areas which legislature consciously did not intend to cover. 
If the legislature wanted to apply Section 4A to the entire State of West Bengal, 
E it could have done so. On the other hand, the legislature had expre5sly confined 
its application to the three sub-divisions of Darjeeling District. 
[470-G, H; 471-A-B) 
1.3. From a plain reading of Section 4B, it is clear that a raiyat cannot 
diminish the area of the land or change its character or convert the land for 
F any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled without the 
previous order in w~iting of the Collector. Felling of trees is not covered by 
this section. Mere felling of trees cannot be taken as diminishing the area of 
the land or changing its character or converting it for purpose other than 
the purpose for which it was settled. (471-D-E] 
G 
1.4. Permission of the Collector is required under Section 4-C for the 
purpose of change of area, character or use of land but not felling of trees in 
private plantation. Mere felling of trees neither disminishes the area nor 
changes the character or use of land beyond that covered by explanation t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.