TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 Girth yield Rate per kg. Seignorage rates Rs. P. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Cashew 4.50 5^th 78 (g) 0.75 10 7.50 8^th 80.50 6.00 6^th 79.50 11.50 10 5.00 9^th 81.00 7.50 7^th 80.00 3.00 10 30.00 10^th 82.00 8.00 10 45.00 11^th 83.00 9.00 10 60.00 12^th 84.00 10.00 10 75.00 13^th 85.00 10.00 10 80.00 14^th 86.00 10.00 10 85.00 15^th 87.50 10.00 10 85.00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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. (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,....