2008 (8) TMI 991 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of 1978.
2. Interpretation of "Harijan Welfare Scheme" u/s 3(g) of the Act.
3. Applicability of the principle of ejusdem generis.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notification u/s 4(1):
The appeals challenge the common order of the learned single Judge dated 17.2.2003, which quashed the notification issued by the appellant and published in the Tiruchirappalli District Gazette No.6 dated 8.3.2000 u/s 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of 1978. The notification aimed to acquire land for constructing an additional building for the Adi Dravidar Welfare Middle School, Devimangalam village. The writ petitions contended that the public purpose did not fall within the definition of "Harijan welfare scheme" u/s 3(g) of the Act.

2. Interpretation of "Harijan Welfare Scheme" u/s 3(g):
The writ Court accepted the respondents' contention that the phrase "for providing any other amenity to the benefit of Harijans" should be read in ejusdem generis to the other purposes stated in the definition clause. Consequently, the Court held that the construction of an additional building for the Adi-Dravidar middle school did not qualify as a "Harijan welfare scheme" and set aside the notification.

3. Applicability of the Principle of Ejusdem Generis:
The High Court disagreed with the writ Court's reasoning, emphasizing that the principle of statutory interpretation requires understanding the legislature's intent. The Court noted that the definition of "Harijan Welfare Scheme" includes various purposes such as provision of house sites, constructing or improving dwelling houses, providing burial or burning grounds, pathways, and "any other amenity for the benefit of Harijans." The Court held that the phrase "any other amenity" should be interpreted broadly to include education, as it aligns with the legislative intent and the constitutional mandate under Article 46 to promote the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The Court further clarified that the ejusdem generis rule applies only when specific words constitute a class or category, which is not the case here. The definition clause does not enumerate a specific category but includes independent purposes, and thus, the principle of ejusdem generis is inapplicable.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge, upheld the notification u/s 4(1), and allowed the writ appeals, dismissing the writ petitions. The Court concluded that the construction of an additional building for the Adi Dravidar Welfare Middle School falls within the scope of "Harijan welfare scheme" as it provides an essential amenity for the benefit of Harijans.