2004 (4) TMI 632 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of the term agriculture in the context of the Act and the notification - Whether pisciculture is considered agriculture under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act 1978 - HELD THAT - It is therefore clear from the record that agriculture for our purpose need not be kept confined in its meaning to the production of grain and food products for consumption of human beings alone; it can be extended as comprising within its meaning all the products of the land involving human labour but then it is the producing capacity of the land which must necessarily be found as involved in any activity to amount to agriculture. In our opinion for the purpose of interpreting the Act and the notification issued thereunder the term agriculture has to be read in contradistinction with the term aquaculture . Pisciculture is a branch of aquaculture. Pisciculture is not agriculture. The learned senior counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the definition of term agriculture as given in definition sections or interpretation clauses of several other enactments such as sub-section (2) of Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1987 clause (b) of Section 2 of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act 1971 clause (a) of Section 2 of Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme 1990 so defining the term agriculture as to include therein pisciculture . These definitions were pressed in service by Shri Iyer the learned senior counsel to support his submission for a similar meaning being assigned in the present case. Suffice it to observe that the common parlance meaning of the term agriculture in the context in which it has been used and is arising for determination before us cannot be determined by reference to definition given in other statutes. This we say for more reasons than one. Firstly none of the statutes reffered to by Shri Iyer the learned senior counsel can be called statutes in pari materia. Secondly it is common knowledge that the definition coined by the Legislature for the purpose of a particular enactment is often an extended or artificial meaning so assigned as to fulfill the object of that enactment. Such definitions given in other enactments cannot be freely used for finding out meaning to be assigned to a term of common parlance used in an altogether different setting. And lastly as Justice G.P. Singh points out in Principles of Statutory Interpretation ......it is hazardous to interpret a statute in accordance with a definition in another statute and more so when such statute is not dealing with any cognate subject or the statutes are not in pari materia. The same view has been taken in the decision of this court in CIT W.B. v. Benoy Kumar 1957 (5) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT which we have extensively referred to earlier in this judgment. We do not find any fault or flaw in the view of the law taken by the High Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court which is also reported as (1998) III M.L.J. 680 is affirmed in its entirety. All the appeals are dismissed with costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether pisciculture is considered agriculture under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978.
2. Interpretation of the term "agriculture" in the context of the Act and the notification issued thereunder.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether pisciculture is considered agriculture under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978.
The appellants, owners of fish farms, claimed the benefit of a notification dated 19.11.1990, which provided free electricity for agricultural purposes. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board denied this benefit on the grounds that pisciculture is not agriculture. The High Court upheld this view, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the term "agriculture" in the context of the Act and the notification issued thereunder.
The Act does not define "agriculture," necessitating an examination of its ordinary meaning. The Court referred to various dictionaries and legal precedents, including the three-Judge Bench decision in CIT v. Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, AIR (1957) Supreme Court 768, which distinguished between the narrow and wider senses of agriculture. The primary sense involves cultivation of the field, while the wider sense includes activities related to land such as horticulture and livestock rearing.

The Court concluded that:
1. Agriculture involves basic operations like tilling, sowing, and planting, which require human skill and labor on the land.
2. Subsequent operations must be in conjunction with the basic agricultural activities.
3. Agriculture includes all products of the land with utility for consumption or trade.
4. Activities merely connected to land do not qualify as agriculture.

The Court rejected the appellants' argument that fish farming is agriculture, noting that fish are not domestic animals and pisciculture is a branch of aquaculture, not agriculture. Definitions from other statutes were deemed irrelevant as they are not in pari materia and often provide extended or artificial meanings to fulfill specific legislative objectives.

The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeals with costs.