VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY AND ANR. versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 13-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY AND ANR. 
'">- . 
v. 
ST ATE OF A.P. 
FEBRUARY 13, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
;.. 
Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 
197 3-Section 15--Surrender of land in excess of limit prescribed having fruit 
~ 
c 
bearing cashew trees-Amount payable for trees-Held: Amounts were payable 
at 'seignorage rates' notified by District Forest Officer under Rule // of 
Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, 
and as per notifications dated 21-3-1982 and 23-4-1982 published in Ne/lore 
Discrict Gazette, amounts were to be calculated from 5th to 30thyear.-As the 
trees were 12 years old at the time when land was surrendered, seignorage 
D rates payable for balance 18 years only, and not for 30 years. 
Interpretation of statues-To gather mens or sententa legis of 
.., 
legislature-Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is 
~ 
plain and unambiguous. 
E 
The appellants were holding land in excess of the limit prescribed 
under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural 
Holdings) Act, 1973. The surplus land was surrendered by them. However, 
on that land there were fruit bearing cashew trees. The dispute relates to 
the amount payable in respect of those trees. According to the authorities 
F 
the payment was to be made for one yi:ar only and not for thirty years as 
was claimed by the appellants. Writ petitions files by appellants before 
the High Court were dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
J_ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. There is no dispute that the amounts payable for fruit 
bearing trees shall be at the 'seignorage rates' notified from time to time 
by the District Forest Officer under Rule 11 of Andhra Pradesh Land 
Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. A bare reading 
!.. 
of notifications dated 21-3-1982 &nd 23-4-1982 published in Nellore District 
Gazette makes the position clear that the amounts are to be calculated 
H 
190 
y 
VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY i·. STATE OF A.P. 
191 
~/ 
from 5th to 30th year. That being so, the stand of the State Government 
as accepted by the High Court that the seignorage rate is clearly for one 
A 
year and accordingly fixing it for the 12 years is clearly unsustainable. It 
is to noted that the tees were 12 years old and stood on the surrendered 
land. It is further clear that upto 5 years cashew trees are held to be not 
fruit bearing trees. (192-E-F; 196-E-F( 
B 
2. The residual question is the number of years for which the 
"'· 
Seignorage rates are to be accepted. There is no substance in the plea of 
appellants that the entitlement of the appellants is for 30 years. Admittedly 
the trees were 12 years old at the time the lands were surrendered and, 
therefore, for the balance 18 years only, the appellants will be entitled to c 
at the relevant seignorage rates. Therefore, the amount payable for each 
12 year old cashew tree at the seignorage rates, as per the Notification 
dated 21-3-1982 (as amended by the Notification dated 23-4-1982) will be 
the 'the seignorage rate for 12 year tree' multiplied by the 'remaining age 
of the tree' that is Rs 85 x 18 =Rs 1530. The amount shall be paid within D 
3 months, along with other statutory entitlements, if any. [199-B-D( 
,..) 
3. Statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of 
~ 
interpreting or construing a status is to gather the mens or sententa legis 
of the legislature. It is well settled in law that the Court cannot read 
anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. 
E 
(197-A( 
Palace Admn. Board v. Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran, AIR 
(1980) SCl 187, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price 
Waterhouse and Anr., AIR (1998) SC 74, State of Gujarat and Ors. v. 
Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr., JT (1998) 2 SC 253, Jamma Masjid, f 
_( 
Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah and Ors., AIR (1962) SC 847, Union of 
India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Veden Vasco De Gama, AIR (1990) 
SC 981, Dr. R.venkatchalam and Ors. v. Dy. Transport Commissioner and 
Ors., AIR (1977) SC 842, Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Popular 
Trading Company, Ujjain, (2000) 5 SCC 515, Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham G 
Umarji v. State of Gujarat and Anr., [2004) 6 SCC 672 and State of Jharkhand 
and Anr. v. Govind Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 437, relied on. 
Kirby v. Leather, (1965) 2 All ER 441, Crawford v. Spooner, (1846) 6 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.