SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and Another
Vs
State of Andhra Pradesh
Appeal (Civil) 3066 of 2000 (With C.A. Nos. 3068, 3069, 3070, 3072, 3073 and 3110 of 2000)
(Arijit Pasayat and R.V. Raveendran, JJ)
13.02.2006
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
These appeals involve identical issues and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Factual background is almost undisputed and the controversy relates to the scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in short the 'Ceiling Rules'). The appellants were holding land in excess of the limit prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act'). The surplus land was surrendered by them which had cashew nut tree plantation. On the surrendered land the trees were fruit bearing trees. The dispute relates to the amount payable in respect of fruit bearing trees standing on the land which were surrendered by the appellant. The number of trees is also not in dispute. The amount payable for the land vested in the Government the amounts were duly paid. With regard to the amount payable for fruit bearing trees a Commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report regarding number of fruit bearing trees and other trees standing on the land so surrendered. The Commissioner of Land Reforms Urban Ceiling, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh directed the District Collector to issue necessary instructions not to fix the compensation payable in respect of the trees under the Rules until further orders. According to the authorities the payment was to be made for one year only and not for thirty years as was claimed by the appellants.
Writ petitions were filed before the High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned orders.
Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court is not correct in its view that the appellants are not entitled to get the amount for 30 years and in accepting the stand of the Government that it was payable only for one year.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other submitted the view of the High Court is clearly unexceptionable. The purpose and object of the Statute under which the lands were surrendered cannot be lost sight of. The appellants have been rightly held to be entitled for amounts payable for one year.
In order to appreciate the rival submissions a few provisions needs to be noted:
A. Section 15 of the Act.
"15. Amount payable for lands vested in the Government:
The amount payable for any land vested in the Government under this Act, shall be a sum calculated at the rates specified in the Second Schedule and it shall be paid at the option of the Government, either in cash or in bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds. The bonds shall be issued on such terms and carry such rate of interest as may be prescribed."
B. Schedule II to the Act
Clause (3) of the Second Schedule to the Act provides as follows:
"Where the land contains any fruit bearing trees or permanent
structures, the amount payable therefore shall be calculated in such manner as
may be prescribed."
C. Rule 11 of the Rules.
"11. Fixation on value for fruit bearing trees and structures etc. 91)
The amount payable for fruit bearing trees shall be at the seignorage rates
notified by the District Forest Officer as applicable to the district from time
to time and for the Tribunal may require the District Forest Officer in whose
jurisdiction the land is situated to furnish an estimate of the amount payable
for such trees.
(2) The amount payable for the structures of permanent nature shall be
equivalent to the depreciated value of the structure as on the specified date
and for this purpose the Tribunal may require the Executive Engineer, Roads and
Buildings Division, in the district to furnish an estimate of the depreciated
value of such structure."
At this juncture it is important to take note of the notifications published in
the Nellore District Gazettes dated 21.3.1982 and 23.4.1982. There is no
dispute that the amounts payable for fruit bearing trees shall be at the
"seignorage rates" notified by the District Forest Officer from time
to time.
Notification dated 21.3.1982 reads as follows:-
"R.C.D. 4 3209/82
NELLORE DISTRICT
GAZETTE EXTRA ODRINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY NELLORE
SUNDAY MARCH 21ST 1982
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5 of the Rules to regulate the seignorage fees to be levied for the removal of timber and other procedure, issued U/s 26 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1882, the Collector hereby fixes the seignorage rates in respect of Cashew Trees (Fruit bearing) in Nellore District as specified in the 'Annexure'. These rates shall come into force with immediate effect.
Sd/-
H.K. Babu, District Collector, Nellore ,Item No.64/82."
Seignorage rates of Cashew Trees (Fruit Bearing) in Nellore District.
S.No
Tree
Age Year
Approximate
Rate per kg
Seignorage Rates Rs.
Girth yieth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.Cashew
5th
78(g)
0.75
10
7.50
6th
79.50
11.50
10
5.00
7th
80.00
3.00
10
30.00
8th
80.50
4.50
10
45.00
9th
81.00
6.00
10
60.00
10th
81.00
7.50
10
75.00
11th
82.00
8.00
10
80.00
12th
82.00
8.50
10
85.00
13th
83.00
9.00
10
90.00
14th
9.50
10
95.00
15th
10.00
10
100.00
16th
84.00
10.00
10
100.00
17th
85.00
10.00
10
100.00
18th
85.00
10.00
10
100.00
19th
80.00
10.00
10
100.00
20th
86.00
10.00
10
100.00
21th
87.00
10.00
10
100.00
22nd
87.50
10.00
10
100.00
23rd
88.00
10.00
10
100.00
24th
88.00
10.00
10
100.00
25th
89.00
10.00
10
100.00
26th
89.00
9.00
10
90.00
27th
90.00
8.00
10
80.00
28th
90.00
7.00
10
70.00
29th
90.00
6.00
10
60.00
30th
90.00
6.00
10
60.00
(Sd)H.K. Babu, Nellore. Dist. Collector.
Dated 21.03.82"
The notification dated 23.4.82 which is crucial for this case reads as follows:
"R.C.D. 4 3209/82
NELLORE DISTRICT GAZETTE
EXTRA ODRINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
NELLORE
APRIL 23 – 1982
NOTIFICATION
The following sentence may be added to the Notification published Nellore District Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 31.03.1982.
The seignorage rate in the column No.7 are the rate of trees per year and the tree will yield for 30 years. The seignorage rate per tree is to be calculated for 30 years.
Sd/-
H.K. Babu,
District Collector, Nellore.
Dt. 23.04.1982
U.M. No.97/82"
A bare reading thereof makes the position clear that the amounts are to be
calculated from 5th to 30th years.
That being so, the stand of the State Government as accepted by the High Court that the seignorage rate is for one year and accordingly fixing it for the 12 year is clearly unsustainable. It is to be noted that the trees were 12 years old and stood on the surrendered land. It is further clear that up to 5 years cashew trees are held to be not fruit bearing trees.
The emphasis for the State was that the object of the concerned statue was not
to confer any benefit beyond the statutory entitlements and for that purpose
according to learned counsel for the State the object of the statute was vital.
According to him for the purpose of construction of the notifications of the
District Collector, the same has to be read in a manner which would give true
effect to the intention of the statute.
We shall deal with this plea in some detail.
It is said that a statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary
principle of interpreting or construing a statute is to gather the mens or
sententia legis of the legislature. It is well settled principle in law that
the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
unambiguous.
Interpretation postulates the search for the true meaning of the words used in the statute as a medium of expression to communicate a particular thought. The task is not easy as the "language" is often misunderstood even in ordinary conversation or correspondence. The tragedy is that although in the matter of correspondence or conversation the person who has spoken the words or used the language can be approached for clarification, the legislature cannot be approached as the legislature, after enacting a law or Act, becomes functus officio so far as that particular Act is concerned and it cannot itself interpret it. No doubt, the legislature retains the power to amend or repeal the law so made and can also declare its meaning, but that can be done only by making another law or statute after undertaking the whole process of law-making.
Statute being an edict of the legislature, it is necessary that it is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. In spite of Courts saying so, the draftsmen have paid little attention and they still boast of the old British jingle "I am the parliamentary draftsman. I compose the country's laws. and of half of the litigation, I am undoubtedly the cause", which was referred to by this Court in Palace Admn. Board v. Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran at. P.1195). In Kirby v. Leather 1965 Indlaw CA 109 the draftsmen were severely criticized in regard to Section 22(2)(b) of the (UK) Limitation Act, 1939, as it was said that the section was so obscure that the draftsmen must have been of unsound mind.
Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no
ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no
scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or
altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the Judges should not
proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition
of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin,
which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed
or erased. This can be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition of the
necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do
so". (See: Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in
"Essays on Jurisprudence", Columbia Law Review, P.51.)
Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents.
The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the
Legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v.
M/s Price Waterhouse and Anr. 3 The intention
of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which
means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has
not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support,
addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as
meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford v. Spooner (1846 (6)
Moore PC 1), Courts, cannot aid the Legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act,
we cannot add or mend, and by construction make up deficiencies which are left
there. (See The State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and
Anr. 6. It is contrary to all rules of
construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do
so. (See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tiptan) Ltd. 1978
Indlaw HL 8 (HL). Rules of interpretation do not permit Courts to do so,
unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning. Courts
are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason
for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord
Loreburn L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans 1910 AC 445 (HL),
quoted in Jamma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah and Ors. .
The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has
been said. "Statutes should be construed not as theorems of Euclid".
Judge Learned Hand said, "but words must be construed with some
imagination of the purposes which lie behind them". (See Lenigh Valley
Coal Co. v. Yensavage 218 FR 547). The view was re-iterated in Union of India
and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama .
In Dr. R. Venkatchalam and Ors. etc. v. Dy. Transport Commissioner and Ors.
etc. , it was observed that Courts must avoid the danger of a priori
determination of the meaning of a provision based on their own pre-conceived
notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the provision to be
interpreted is somewhat fitted. They are not entitled to usurp legislative
function under the disguise of interpretation.
While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot
legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of
process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if
deemed necessary. (See Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Popular Trading
Company, Ujjain . The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by
judicial interpretative process. (See Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v.
State of Gujarat and Anr. and State of Jharkhand and Anr. V. Govind
Singh 7
The residual question is the number of years for which the Seignorage rates are
to be computed.
We do not find any substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellants
that the entitlement of the appellants is for 30 years. Admittedly the trees
were 12 years old at the time the land were surrendered and, therefore, for the
balance 18 years only the appellants will be entitled to at the relevant
seignorage rates. Therefore, the amount payable for each 12 year old cashew
tree at the seignorage rates, as per the Notification dated 21.3.1982 (as
amended by Notification dated 23.4.1982) will be 'the seignorage rate for 12
year tree' multiplied by the 'remaining age of the tree' that is Rs.85x 18 =
Rs.1530. The amount shall be paid within 3 months, along with other statutory
entitlements, if any. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.