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. 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 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. "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. :" ( 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 forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. :" ( 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 forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. ( 5 ) WHAT is evident from a reading of the said decision of the Supreme Court and the directions contained therein is that while the Supreme Court has imposed certain bans in respect of undesirable activities in the forests, irrespective of the nature of the forest, the Court however has in more places than one in the decision recorded its directions that the ban which has been imposed by the Supreme Court in respect of forests will not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest. This is therefore a clear and unambiguous direction of the Supreme Court that the ban will not affect felling of trees in any non-forest private plantation. And the Supreme Court has further made it clear that its 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. The position therefore, in view of the said Supreme Court decision is that the ban regarding felling of trees in forests as imposed by the Supreme Court is not to apply to felling of trees in any private plantation which is not forest. In view of the specific direction of the Supreme Court in this respect, the order of the Supreme Court has to be given effect including the ban in forests and the non-application of the ban in non-forest private plantations notwithstanding any deviating order in this respect which might have been made or may be made by any Government, authority, tribunal or Court including the High Court. 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 non-forest private plantations has to prevail over any other deviating order even if such order has been or is passed by the High Court. 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 non-forest private plantations has to prevail over any other deviating order even if such order has been or is passed by the High Court. It is however to be noticed here that while the Supreme Court expressly recorded in its direction about the non-application of the ban in any non-forest private plantation the Supreme Court only nullified in clear words the orders at variance which might have been or might be passed by any Government, authority, tribunal or Court. The Supreme Court however did not say nor purported to say that any statutory or enacted law regarding non-forest private plantation will not be given effect to. In fact the Supreme Court while giving direction for the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the said judgment (at page 1231 ibid) recorded that there will be no felling of trees permitted in forest, private or public, but this ban will not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted by private persons or the Social Forestry Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in such plantations felling will be strictly in accordance with law. What we want to highlight is that although the Supreme Court in express terms directed that the ban in respect of forests as imposed by its order will not apply to felling of trees in non-forest privation plantations, and the order of the Supreme Court was also directed to operate and to be implemented even notwithstanding any deviating order of the Government or Court, etc. and no order of the Court or of the Government, etc. therefore, by its own force, could impose any restriction on the felling of trees in any non-forest private plantation if it is at variance with the order of the Apex Court, yet the order of the Supreme Court did not bar the application of any enacted law in the matter if any such enacted law applies in respect of non-forest private plantations. ( 6 ) IN the backdrop of the said Supreme Court decision in T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India ( AIR 1997 SC 1228 ) (supra) a Division Bench of this Court presided over by S. K. Mookherjee, J. considered the matter in M. A. T. 3681/1997 (Md. ( 6 ) IN the backdrop of the said Supreme Court decision in T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India ( AIR 1997 SC 1228 ) (supra) a Division Bench of this Court presided over by S. K. Mookherjee, J. considered the matter in M. A. T. 3681/1997 (Md. Mustafijur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal ). That was an appeal challenging an order of the learned single Judge holding, in view of the said Supreme Court decision, that the restriction with regard to the forest did not apply to the case under consideration of the Court as the lands were recorded as orchard/garden in the record of rights and as such could be classified as raiyati land. However while concluding as above, the learned trial Judge imposed certain restrictions with regard to the removal of trees thereon and such restrictions imposed had been the subject matter of challenge in the said appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned trial Judge in view of the said Supreme Court decision as it was felt that there could not have been any objection to felling of trees in non-forest private plantation, although the Division Bench did not record its opinion as to whether the concerned land was a forest land or not and left that matter to be decided by the statutory authorities being the Divisional Forest Officer and Collector. The said decision of the Division Bench, unreported though, is dated the 6th February, 1998. However subsequently another Division Bench of this Court in its order dt. 15-7-98 in Re: Cutting of Trees at Mankundu, (1998) 2 Cal LJ 119 recorded certain directions. One such direction is that there should be total ban on felling of Mahua Tree and Kendu Tree and that apart no other trees should be cut or fell down by anybody without obtaining the permission from the local authority concerned or the District Forest Officers. In this decision in Re: Cutting of Trees at Mankundu (supra) no notice was taken of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India (supra) or of the Division Bench decision of this Court in M. A. T. 3681/1997. In this decision in Re: Cutting of Trees at Mankundu (supra) no notice was taken of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India (supra) or of the Division Bench decision of this Court in M. A. T. 3681/1997. So far as the ban on felling trees in forests is concerned, there are definite directions of the Supreme Court as we have noticed and therefore there was no scope for giving any further deviating direction in this respect by the Division Bench in its decision in (1998) 2 Cal LJ 119, particularly where the Supreme Court had specifically directed that its order was to operate and had to be implemented notwithstanding any order made or might be made by any Court or Government, etc. which might be at variance with the order of the Supreme Court. Also, so far as non-forest private plantations are concerned, there was no scope for passing any different order by the Division Bench which would be at variance with the order of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench in (1998) 2 Cal LJ 119 also directed in paragraph 9 that the 'hade trees' in the tea gardens should not be felled without the prior approval of the District Forest Officer of a particular area. In the next sentence the Division Bench says that the local authorities, namely, municipality, panchayat and a nominee of the District Magistrate should consider and grant permission. The two sentences read together make it confusing as to who has been made the permitting authority by the Division Bench in respect of cutting of 'hade trees' in tea gardens, whether the DFO as stated in the first sentence or the other authorities mentioned in the next sentence. Moreover such direction stands at variance with the Supreme Court directions, as a little study reveals. In paragraph 11 of the said decision of the Division Bench it is stated that so far as the areas covered under the forest are concerned, the cutting and felling of trees in the forest should be done after framing a policy and/or a scheme so as to maintain balance between the rate of forestation and rate of deforestation and regarding forest which is situated in or around any locality, the local authorities should also be informed about the action taken in respect of the cutting of trees. It was further observed that in case of cutting of trees in forest and in other areas the permission is to be granted and a report should be submitted to the District Magistrate in all other Districts and so far as Calcutta is concerned the same should be submitted before the State Pollution Control Board. Evidently some directions of the Division Bench are at variance with the direction of the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavaram v. Union of India ( AIR 1997 SC 1228 ) (supra ). As for example, the Supreme Court in the said decision says that the felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with working plans of the State Govt. as approved by the Central Government. But this ban is not to affect felling in any non-forest private plantation but the Division Bench in (1998) 2 Cal LJ 119 says that in case of cutting of trees in forest and in other areas the permission is to be granted and a report should be submitted by certain authorities mentioned therein which is at variance with the directions in the Supreme Court decision. The Division Bench also directed the State Government to form a Committee consisting of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Ex-Officio, Principal Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal, Managing Director of West Bengal Forest Department Corporation, an officer of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and another officer as may be selected by the State Government who would constitute a Committee who should issue guidelines and prepare management plan in every sphere of plantation of trees and should also issue directions and guidelines in all matters including felling of trees. This direction also, we are afraid, is not consistent with the directions of the Supreme Court. This inconsistent situation has arisen because the Supreme Court decision in T. N. Godavaram v. Union of India (supra) was not placed before the Division Bench. This direction also, we are afraid, is not consistent with the directions of the Supreme Court. This inconsistent situation has arisen because the Supreme Court decision in T. N. Godavaram v. Union of India (supra) was not placed before the Division Bench. Be that as it may, the position boils down to this, in view of the said Supreme Court decision, that the ban imposed by the Supreme Court in respect of forests will not apply to felling of trees in non-forest private plantations and this position cannot be varied or altered by any order of the Court or of the Government, but however if any enacted law, present or future, is applicable in the matter the same would no doubt apply. This is so, because while the Supreme Court bans the operation of any order of any authority, Government, tribunal or Court which may be at variance with the order of the Supreme Court, it does not ban the operation of any enacted law applicable in the matter. ( 7 ) A learned Judge of this Court in Biswanth Kumar v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 2 Cal HN 407 had to consider the question whether the owner of an orchard had any right to fell down trees standing therein which had become old and had lost their optimum fruit-bearing capacity, were no longer economically profitable and were required to be replaced by new trees with higher fruit-yielding capacity. In that connection the learned Judge had also to consider the provisions of Sections 4b and 4c of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The learned Judge was of the view that so long as the area, user and character of the land was not changed the provisions of Section 4b as also the proviso thereto would not be attracted in a given case. However keeping in mind certain factors relating to the environment and ecological balance as mentioned in the judgment, and in the absence of any express legislation to cover the situation it was felt by the learned Judge that certain safeguards might be introduced in line with Section 45a and 51a (g) of the Constitution so that the citizens at large were not adversely affected by the action of individuals in felling trees. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed that the raiyat will not be entitled to cut down all the trees in the orchard or garden at a time but shall be entitled once every two years to cut down and replace the old, uneconomic and/or unproductive tree or trees in the ratio of 1 : 10 on condition of replacing the same by new saplings. There were also certain other directions recorded in the decision. It is however to be noted that the said single Bench decision was rendered before the Supreme Court decision in T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228 . ( 8 ) IT may be also noted here that so far as 'forests' are concerned there are various enactments, such as, central enactments like the Forest Act, 1927. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the State Government like the West Bengal Private Forests Act, 1948 regulating or prohibiting different types of activities including felling of trees in forests, but as far as we are aware there is no enactment in the State of West Bengal regarding felling of trees in non-forest areas, except the provisions of Sections 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which have some bearing on the extent of the right of felling of trees by a raiyat on his land. Section 4b of the said Act relates to maintenance and preservation of land. Section 4c relates to permission for change of area, character or use of land and Section 4d relates to punishment for violation of Section 4c. Section 4b runs thus :-"4b. Section 4b of the said Act relates to maintenance and preservation of land. Section 4c relates to permission for change of area, character or use of land and Section 4d relates to punishment for violation of Section 4c. Section 4b runs thus :-"4b. Maintenance and Preservation of Land.- Every raiyat holding any land shall 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 converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or previously held except with the previous order in writing of the Collector under Section 4c;provided that any raiyat may plant and grow trees on any land held by him within the ceiling area applicable to him and to his family without any previous order under Section 4c, if such land is not cultivated by Bargadar :provided further that without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter IIB of the Act the provisions of this section shall not apply to the diminution in area or the change of character 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 in force. "section 4c of the said Act runs thus :-"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. (2) On receipt of such application, the Collector may, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, and after giving the applicants 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 conditions as may be prescribed; (3) Every order under sub-section (2) directing change, conversion or alteration shall specify the date from which such change, conversion or alteration shall take effect : (4) If the Collector is satisfied that any land is being converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or was being previously held, 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. " ( 9 ) THE learned Judge in the decision in Biswanath Kumar v. State of West Bengal (1996 (2) Cal HN 407) (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 provisions of Sections 4b and 4c. That trees may have some bearing on the nature and character of the land on which they are standing or on the mode of its use is beyond doubt. That trees may have some bearing on the nature and character of the land on which they are standing or on the mode of its use is beyond doubt. This gets exemplified by the first proviso to Section 4b which permits a raiyat to plant and grow trees on his land without the previous order of the Collector if such land is not cultivated by Bargadar. A land which is used as cultivable land may be converted into a different type by planting quite a number of trees on it thereby replacing cultivation by afforestation. The proviso permits afforestation or planting or growing of trees on the land without any order of the Collector although by doing so the nature and character of the land or its user may be changed. But this is not permitted if the land is under the cultivation of Bargadar so that the Bargadar' interest in the matter of growing crops in that land and receiving share thereof may not be jeopardised or affected. This is one aspect of the matter. Similarly if an orchard is cleared of the trees or a number of trees are cut down without taking any measure to protect and preserve the nature and the character of the land in that event Section 4b and Section 4c will be definitely attracted to such felling of trees. It therefore cannot be said that there is altogether no statutory provision imposing any restriction on the felling of trees in non-forest private plantation. Section 4b of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act definitely projects a bar against felling of trees - may not be in respect of felling of a single tree - in such number and in such manner that such felling may or is likely to change the nature and character of the land or the mode of its use. In such case of felling of trees in non-forest private plantation definitely Section 4b will be attracted and in that case such felling cannot be done without obtaining permission of the Collector under Section 4c. It is also not correct to say that anticipated change of character and use of land comprising orchards cannot be a ground of objecting to the felling of trees. It is also not correct to say that anticipated change of character and use of land comprising orchards cannot be a ground of objecting to the felling of trees. As we have seen Section 4c (5) expressly provides inter alia that if the Collector is satisfied that attempts are being made to effect alteration in the mode of use of the land or for changing its character he may restrain the raiyat from such act. This is a statutory provision. Under this statutory provision the Collector is entitled to restrain the raiyat from felling trees on his land if he is satisfied that by such felling the character of the land or its mode of use is going to be or likely to be changed. If such a case the felling of trees can be done only with the prior permission of the Collector. Felling of a single tree however may not be an act by which the mode of use of the land or its character can be changed. Here we may refer to Section 4a (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which runs thus :-"4a. Certain restrictions on rights of raiyats in Sadar, Kalimpong and Kurseong Sub-Divisions of Darjeeling District - (1) In the Sadar Sub-Division, Kalimpong Sub-Division and Kurseong Sub-Division of the district of Darjeeling, the Deputy Commissioner of the district may, from time to time, give directions regarding form of cultivation to be adopted by a raiyat in respect of his holding or prohibiting a raiyat from cutting more than one tree from his holding except with the previous permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf. "the above provision also clearly indicates that the legislature did not impose any general restriction on felling or cutting of trees and it is only in the three specified Sub-Divisions of the Darjeeling district the legislature authorised the Deputy Commissioner to prohibit a raiyat from cutting more than one tree from his holding except with his previous permission. Therefore there is no legislative ban in respect of cutting of any tree in any none-forest private plantation and the legislature has authorised the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling district to impose certain restrictions including prohibition of cutting of more than one tree without his permission. Therefore there is no legislative ban in respect of cutting of any tree in any none-forest private plantation and the legislature has authorised the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling district to impose certain restrictions including prohibition of cutting of more than one tree without his permission. That apart under Section 4b there is indeed an implied statutory ban against cutting or felling of trees in non-forest private plantation in such number and in such manner as may change the nature and character of the land or its user. To prevent any such mischief the Collector of the district may restrain a raiyat under Section 4c (5) from cutting or felling trees on his land if the Collector is satisfied that recourse to such felling or cutting of trees may change the character of the land or the mode of its user. Since such restriction in regard to private plantation flows from the statutory provisions the same is not affected by the order of the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman v. Union of India, ( AIR 1997 SC 1228 ) (supra) for reasons we have discussed earlier. While cutting of, say, one or two trees in a non-forest private plantation, in the absence of any restriction or prohibition flowing from or rooted in any enacted law, may not be affected by any non-statutory ban at variance with the order of the Supreme Court, yet felling of trees in considerable number fraught with the actual or probable consequence of changing the character of the raiyat land or the mode of its user will certainly attract the application of the statutory provisions of Section 4b and Section 4c of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and this position is not affected by the said decision of the Supreme Court for reasons discussed earlier. ( 10 ) TO maintain a balance between the right of an individual raiyat to cut trees standing on his land without changing the nature and character of the land or the mode of its user on the one hand and the enforcement of the statutory provisions of Sections 4b and 4c of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act as well as for avoidance of any possible evasion of such provisions on the other hand we think the guidelines mentioned in the decision in Biswanath Kumar v. State of West Bengal (1996) 2 Cal HN 407 (supra) will fairly suffice. In that decision the learned Judge, Altamas Kabir, J. has recorded that the raiyat will not be entitled to cut down all the trees in the orchard or garden at a time, but he shall be entitled once every two years to cut down and replace the old uneconomic and/or unproductive trees in the ratio of 1 : 10 (1 : 5 in case of orchard or garden comprised of less than 10 trees ). The raiyat intending to cut down trees in an orchard or garden however according to the said decision, has to give 15 days notice to the Collector of the district before cutting down of trees with the intention of replacing them with new plants stating the number of trees to be cut down and their identification with an undertaking to replace them with new saplings within two weeks of the felling of such trees. The raiyat, we think, should mention in the notice the area and description of the land comprising the orchard or garden, the total number of trees standing thereon, the number of trees proposed to be cut down and replaced by new saplings, the month and year in which trees were cut there in the past and whether they were replaced by new saplings. Obviously on receipt of such notice the Collector will be at liberty to cause inspection for ascertaining the veracity of the particulars given in the notice and whether the proposed felling of trees is consistent with the norms and the ratio fixed for cutting of trees. If the Collector on the basis of such inspection or otherwise detects any violation of the norms fixed about the ratio of cutting of trees or of the periodicity of cutting or any other violation of the provisions of Section 4b, he will certainly be entitled to take action under Section 4c and/or Section 4d of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It is made clear that apart from the above directions the Collector may also on the application of a raiyat in an appropriate case permit the raiyat to change the nature and character of the land or the mode of its user in exercise of his power under Section 4c. It is made clear that apart from the above directions the Collector may also on the application of a raiyat in an appropriate case permit the raiyat to change the nature and character of the land or the mode of its user in exercise of his power under Section 4c. In the present case the petitioner has not disclosed the total number of trees standing in the garden or the occasion, if any, on which trees of the garden were cut earlier, as a result of which it cannot be ascertained whether the proposed cutting of trees violates the permissible limits of the norms regarding ratio and periodicity. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition by directing that the petitioner will be entitled to fell down trees standing on is garden within the limits of the norms regarding the ratio and periodicity mentioned above with an undertaking to replace the trees by new saplings to be planted within one month of the felling of trees. He will however not take recourse to cutting of trees without giving one months notice to the Collector stating therein all necessary particulars and recording the necessary undertaking as mentioned above. In all such cases also such notice of one month, instead of 15 days, shall be given so that the Collector may get sufficient time to cause inspection to be made in the meantime, if he so desires. In case of any violation of this order by the raiyat or any other violations of the provisions of Section 4b or Section 4c of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act the Collector will be entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with law. ( 11 ) BEFORE parting with the case we would however like to observe that the State Government may consider the desirability of having enacted a comprehensive law as early as possible regarding felling of trees in non-forest areas with a view to taking care of the environmental necessities of the time. In this connection mention may be made of The U. P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hilly Areas Act, 1976 which is applicable in Uttar Pradesh. The desirability of having such a law in West Bengal with such modification as may be considered necessary cannot perhaps be overemphasised. The State Government should consider the matter promptly with due seriousness which the matter deserves. The desirability of having such a law in West Bengal with such modification as may be considered necessary cannot perhaps be overemphasised. The State Government should consider the matter promptly with due seriousness which the matter deserves. The Registrar, Appellate Side is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal so that the State Government may take early steps for having an appropriate legislation in West Bengal. This order will also governs, and disposes of the following matters, namely, (1) W. P. No. 15899 (W) of 1998, (2) W. P. No. 15900 (W) of 1998, (3) W. P. No. 15901 (W) of 1998, (4) W. P. No. 15902 (W) of 1998, (5) W. P. No. 15903 (W) of 1998, and (6) W. P. No. 16171 (W) of 1998 and also (7) W. P. No. 21824 (W) of 1998. ( 12 ) NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, J. , I agree. Order accordingly.