TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellants granted compensation for trees' remaining productive life, payment due in 3 months</h1> <h3>Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy & Anr Versus State Of A.P</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, ruling that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the remaining 18 years of the trees' productive life ... Scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in short the 'Ceiling Rules') Issues Involved:1. Scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974.2. Amount payable for fruit-bearing trees on surrendered land.3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and relevant notifications.Detailed Analysis:1. Scope and Ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974:The appellants held land exceeding the limit prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. They surrendered surplus land with cashew nut tree plantations. The dispute centered on the amount payable for fruit-bearing trees on this surrendered land. Rule 11 of the Ceiling Rules specifies that the amount payable for fruit-bearing trees should be at the seignorage rates notified by the District Forest Officer applicable to the district from time to time.2. Amount Payable for Fruit-Bearing Trees on Surrendered Land:The appellants argued they were entitled to compensation for 30 years, whereas the authorities contended it was only for one year. The High Court had accepted the State's view that the amount was payable for one year only. However, the Supreme Court noted that the relevant notifications published in the Nellore District Gazettes on 21.3.1982 and 23.4.1982 clarified that the seignorage rates were to be calculated for 30 years. Specifically, the notification dated 23.4.1982 stated, 'The seignorage rate per tree is to be calculated for 30 years.'3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Relevant Notifications:The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutes to ascertain the legislature's intent. The Court stated, 'It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous.' The Court criticized the High Court's acceptance of the State's interpretation, which limited the compensation to one year. The Supreme Court clarified that the statutory provisions and notifications clearly indicated that compensation should be calculated from the 5th to the 30th year of the tree's age.The Court underscored that the trees were 12 years old at the time of surrender, and thus, compensation should be calculated for the remaining 18 years. The amount payable for each 12-year-old cashew tree at the seignorage rates, as per the Notification dated 21.3.1982 (amended by Notification dated 23.4.1982), was determined to be Rs. 85 multiplied by the remaining age of the tree (18 years), totaling Rs. 1530 per tree.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the appellants were entitled to compensation for the remaining 18 years of the trees' productive life, not just one year. The amount was to be paid within three months along with any other statutory entitlements. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
