9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Girth yield Rate per kg. Seignorage rates Rs. P. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Cashew 4.50 5th 78 (g) 0.75 10 7.50 8th 80.50 6.00 6th 79.50 11.50 10 5.00 9th 81.00 7.50 7th 80.00 3.00 10 30.00 10th 82.00 8.00 10 45.00 11th 83.00 9.00 10 60.00 12th 84.00 10.00 10 75.00 13th 85.00 10.00 10 80.00 14th 86.00 10.00 10 85.00 15th 87.50 10.00 10 85.00 16th 88.00 10.00 10 90.00 17th 89.00 10.00 10 95.00 18th 90.00 10.00 10 100.00 19th 90.00 10.00 10 100.00 20th 90.00 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 legisl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... athjibhai Patel and Anr. (JT 1998 (2) SC 253)). 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 1 All ER 948 (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.(AIR 1962 SC 847). 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 (AIR 1990 SC 981). In Dr. R. Venkatchalam and Ors. etc. v. Dy. Transport Commissioner and Ors. etc. (AIR 1977 SC 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
