GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, J. - (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 approval of the Central Government must cease forthwith. 3. The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the Working Plans of the State Governments, as approved by the Central Government. In the absence of any Working Plan in any particular State such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system exists, the felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest Department of the State Government or the State Forest Corporation.4. This ban will also not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest. III. FOR THE STATE OR HIMACHAL PRADESH, THE HILL REGIONS OF THE STATES OF UTTAR PRADESH, WEST BENGAL :1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in any forest, public or private. This ban will not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a 'forest' and which has not been converted from an earlier 'forest'. This ban will not apply to permits granted to the right holders for their bona fide personal use in Himachal Pradesh. 7. This order is to operate and to be implemented, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made by any Government or any authority, tribunal or Court, including the High Court. 6. The earlier orders made in these matters shall be read, modified wherever necessary to this extent. This order is to continue until further orders. This order will operate and be complied with by all concerned, notwithstanding any order at variance, made or which may be made hereafter, by any authority, including the Central or any State Government or any Court (including High Court) or Tribunal." 4. It is therefore evident that the Supreme Court (AIR 1997 SC 1228) by its directions imposed certain bans including ban in respect of felling of trees in forests, irrespective of the nature of the forest, that is, whether the forest is a public forest or private, reserved, protected or otherwise. The Supreme Court in the said decision at page 1231 (ibid) also directed that each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to identify areas which are forests, irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest, and identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared and also identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons. The Expert Committee was also directed to make assessment of certain aspects mentioned in the judgment and to submit a report within one month of being constituted. The Supreme Court further directed that each State Government would constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee the compliance of that order and file status reports. That the Supreme Court issued the directions in the said decision with due regard to the environmental and ecological aspects of the matter in the backdrop of the possible effect of deforestation is also evident from the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 4 thereof viz. :";