ORAL JUDGMENT Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.- 1. The petitioner owns a property known as "DOVORNEACHEM MOLLA alias DOVORNEA MOLLA" situate at village Pirla, of Taluka Quepem. The property bears Survey No. 6/1 and admeasures 16.51 hectares. According to the petitioner, he has a rubber plantation on about 12 hectares of this land. 2. By an application dated 19th May 1986 the petitioner applied to the 1st respondent, who is a Tree Officer appointed under the Goa. Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 for permission to fell 77 trees standing in an area of one hectare of this land. This application was made under the provisions of Section 9 of the Goa. Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act (hereinafter called 'the Trees e Act, 1984'). The application was received by the 1st respondent on 21st May 1986. The petitioner did not receive any permission or refusal within 60 days of the date of receipt of his application from the 1st respondent. However, by a reply dated 18th February 1987, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that his request for felling trees could not be granted. The area in question was a forest and hence permission for its conversion to a rubber plantation could not be granted. Thereafter there is correspondence between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, which we need not refer to at length. In this correspondence the petitioner has disputed the contention of the 1st respondent that land in question is a forest. According to the petitioner, Survey No. 6/1 is predominantly a rubber plantation and trees which are sought to be felled are only in a small strip along a part of the eastern boundary of his property. The petitioner has also pointed out that in the Record of Rights this land is classified as 'Bharad' (barren land). The respondents, however, contend that looking to the nature of the property in question, it is a forest land and that, in view of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, permission from the Central Government for felling trees in respect of 1 Section No. 6/1 is necessary before approval to the felling of trees in question can be granted by the State Government. 3. Under the Trees Act, 1984 Section 8 prescribes certain restrictions on felling and removal of trees. 3. Under the Trees Act, 1984 Section 8 prescribes certain restrictions on felling and removal of trees. Under Section 8 no person shall fell or remove or dispose of any tree or forest produce in any land, whether in his ownership or occupancy or otherwise. except with the previous permission of the Tree Officer. We are not concerned with the proviso to that section, which permits immediate felling of a tree without permission in certain special circumstances. 4. Under Section 9(1) of the Trees Act, 1984. any person desiring to fell or remove or otherwise dispose of by any means a trees, shall make an application to the concerned Tree Officer for permission as set out in that sub-section. Under sub-section (4), if the Tree Officer fails to communicate his permission or refusal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of that application, permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Under Section 10 every person, who is granted permission under this Act, to fell or dispose of any tree, shall be bound to plant such number and kind of trees in the area from which the tree is felled or disposed of by him under such permission, as may be directed by the Tree Officer. It is not in dispute that this Act applies to the land of the petitioner. The petitioner had accordingly applied for permission under Section 9 of the Trees Act. 1984. In view of the fact that the Tree Officer neither granted nor refused permission within 60 days of the date of receipt of the application, sub-section (4) of Section 9 would come into operation and the petitioner can be considered as deemed to have been granted permission to fell the trees in question. It is true that subsequently the Tree Officer has written to the petitioner refusing permission to cut the trees. But once the deeming provision of Section 9 sub-section (4) comes into operation, the Tree Officer's power to refuse permission comes to an end. 5. In the case of The Balasiner Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, reported in AIR 1987 SC 849 the Supreme Court considered a somewhat similar provision under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. But once the deeming provision of Section 9 sub-section (4) comes into operation, the Tree Officer's power to refuse permission comes to an end. 5. In the case of The Balasiner Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, reported in AIR 1987 SC 849 the Supreme Court considered a somewhat similar provision under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. Under Section 36 of that Act approval or disapproval of the Registrar was required to be indicated to the Society within a period of 3 months from the date of submission,; and in the absence of such communication the resolution would be effective. The Supreme Court held that on the expiry of 3 months the Registrar becomes functus officio and his power to accord approval or disapproval to the resolution passed by the Society for expulsion of a member, lapses. The same ratio would apply to the present case. 6. However, apart from the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984, there are other Acts which are also applicable to the land of the petitioner. The Indian Forest Act, 1927, which is a Central Act, was enacted to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce. Although the Act contains the definition of "forest produce" (Section 2 sub- section (4)), it does not contain any definition of 'forest'. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted to provide for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. This Act is a Central Act and it applies to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This Act also does not contain any definition of the term "forest". Under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 restrictions are imposed on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes. The relevant provisions of Section 2 are as follows : 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing- (i) *** *** *** (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing- (i) *** *** *** (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than re-afforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipe- lines or other like purposes. 7. It is the contention of the respondents that by felling the said trees and planting rubber trees on the land, the petitioner is seeking to use the forest land for a non-forest purpose. Under Section 2, therefore, the petitioner requires prior approval of the Central Government without which, no order granting permission to the petitioner to fell the trees can be made by the State Government. 8. The question whether the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to the land of the petitioner turns on whether the land of the petitioner can be considered as forest land or not. Admittedly there is no statutory definition of what constitutes 'forest' or 'forest land'. In the case of Janu Chandra Wagmare v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 Bombay 119, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court considered, inter alia, the meaning of the term 'forest' under Schedule 7. List II. Entry 19 of the Constitution of India. The Court quoted with approval the meaning of the word 'forest' as given in Oxford English Dictionary, namely (i) an extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture: also the tress collectively of a forest; (ii) a woodland district, usually belonging to the King, set apart for hunting wild beasts and game etc. and (iii) a wild uncultivated waste, wilderness. The Court has said that a forest is basically a tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth. 9. and (iii) a wild uncultivated waste, wilderness. The Court has said that a forest is basically a tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth. 9. In the present case, the application which was made by the petitioner gives the particulars of the land in question. As per the particulars given by the petitioner himself, on this land the trees whose girth measured at a height of 30 cms. from the ground, is not less than 5 cms in diameter, are 250 in number approximately. On the one hectare in question, the total number of trees which the petitioner wants to fell are 77. This description would itself go to show that this is a wooded area having a large number of trees. In the affidavit in reply which was filed by the respondent, it is stated that on 17.2.1987 the site in question was inspected by the respondents in the presence of a representatives of the petitioner and it was found that the area was full of forest trees. The same statement is repeated in para 14 of the affidavit, where the respondents contend that the land in question is forest land and there are several forest trees besides the trees for which permission has been asked for felling, Looking to these statements and the description given by the petitioner himself in his application, the and in question has to be considered as 'forest land'. 10. It was submitted by the petitioner that there is rubber plantation on a substantial portion of Survey No. 6/1 and that if the entire Survey No. 6/1 is considered as a whole, it cannot be considered as a forest land. Basically this is a disputed question of fact. Looking however to the fact that on the entire Survey No, 6/1 there are approximately at least 250 trees, and looking to the fact that on only one hectare of this land, 77 trees are sought to be felled, in our view, if the respondents, after inspection, have taken the view that this is a forest land, we do not see any reason to take a different view. Both the Trees Act, 1984 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are aimed at preventing large scale cutting of trees and denudation of forest land. They should be construed liberally to further the objects for which they are enacted. 11. Both the Trees Act, 1984 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are aimed at preventing large scale cutting of trees and denudation of forest land. They should be construed liberally to further the objects for which they are enacted. 11. The petitioner drew our attention to the Guidelines for diversion of forest lands for non-forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 issued by the Government of India. Ministry of Environment & Forests, which are dated 31st July 1986. Under Clause 3(i) of these Guidelines, while applying the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 the term 'forest land' mentioned in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. 1980 should be considered as applying to reserved forests, protected forests or any area recorded as a forest in the Government records. All proposals for diversion of such areas to any non-forest purpose, even if the area is privately owned, would require the prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Relying on these guidelines, the petitioner submits that the land in question is neither a reserved forest nor a protected forest. The area is also not recorded as "forest" in the Government records. In the Government records, the land is shown as "Bharad" (barren). The petitioner, therefore, contends that as per the Central Government's own guidelines, this land cannot be considered as covered by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In our view, these guidelines cannot restrict the operation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Act, as set out earlier, does not define what is a forest. We have, therefore, to understand the term as it is normally understood. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Waghmare v. The State of Maharashtra, (supra) has relied upon the dictionary meaning of forest as referring to an extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth. Admittedly the land in question is anything but barren. It has, according to the petitioner himself, a rubber plantation plus a large number of trees. The classification of this land as 'Bharad' in the Index Land Form 3 is, therefore, hardly accurate. A wrong description of land in Index Land Form 3 cannot prevent the application of the forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, if it is otherwise applicable. The guidelines, which are administrative also cannot restrict in any manner the application of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. A wrong description of land in Index Land Form 3 cannot prevent the application of the forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, if it is otherwise applicable. The guidelines, which are administrative also cannot restrict in any manner the application of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In our view, therefore, looking to the nature of the land, the petitioner requires prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 before he can be permitted to convert this land to rubber plantation, which is a non-forest use of land as per the Explanation to Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 12. It was also contended by the petitioner that at the material time, Goa was a Union Territory. It became a State only from 30th May 1987. The land was, therefore, situated in a Union Territory and therefore, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was not applicable. In this connection the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Kotwal and Guttal JJ. in the case of Kamat Holiday Resorts v. Union of India, reported in 1989-2 Bom. CR 261. In that case the learned judge held that in the case of a Union Territory. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act becomes meaningless because if we read "Central Government" in the place of "State Government" in that section (it being a Union Territory). Central Government would require its own approval, which, according to the learned judges, is meaningless. They, thereupon, concluded that the Act was not applicable to Union Territories. With all respect to the learned judges, we do not see how it is meaningless for the Central Government to require its own approval. All it means is that instead of the approval of two authorities the State as well as the Central Government, only the approval of the Central Government is required in the case of a Union Territory. We also do not see how, when Section 1 of the Act makes the Act applicable to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, one can exclude the Union Territories from the ambit of the Act. This interpretation would also be contrary to the aims and objects of the Act. We need not, however, examine this aspect any further because in the present case, after May 1987. Goa is a State. This interpretation would also be contrary to the aims and objects of the Act. We need not, however, examine this aspect any further because in the present case, after May 1987. Goa is a State. The trees in question are still standing on the land. If they are to be cut, an order under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is required. Such an order cannot be issued without the prior approval of the Central Government. Such an approval has not been granted. 13. In the premises, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 14. Rule is, therefore, discharged. 15. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition granted.