Back
2008(7) Supreme 762
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Nagar Palika Nigam — Appellant
versus
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1921 of 2006
Decided on : 14-10-2008
1897 AC 647 (HL); 1880 (5) QBD 170; AIR 1961 SC 1596; AIR 1965 SC 1728; AIR 1991 SC 1406; AIR 1991 SC 1538; (1994)5 SCC 672; [1922] 1 A.C. 256; 25 Q.B.D. 285; [1940] A.C. 206; 2003 (4) SCALE 197 – Relied upon.
(b) Interpretation of Statute – A statute is an edict of the Legislature – Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous – The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it – 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 – The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process – Also well settled that statute has to be read as a whole and the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further. (Paras 15, 16 and 22)
AIR 1998 SC 74; (1846 (6) Moore PC 1; JT 1998 (2) SC 253; 1978 1 All ER 948 (HL); (1910) AC 445 (HL); AIR 1962 SC 847; 218 FR 547; AIR 1990 SC 981; AIR 1977 SC 842; (2000)5 SCC 515; 1966 1 QB 878; 1966 AC 557; 11 Moore, P.C. 345; 1 T.R. 52; 6 H.L. Cas. 61; 11 C.B. 378 – Relied upon.
(c) Maxim – Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur – The laws are adapted to those cases which more frequently occur. (Para 23)
(2004)6 SCC 672 – Relied upon.
(d) Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 – Section 9(3) – Since there was no challenge at any point of time to the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 9 on the alleged ground of lack of legislative competence, the same could not have been dealt with – No challenge even before the Supreme Court – Therefore, no scope for interference with the order passed by the High Court and no need to answer the reference made. (Para 24)
Facts of the case :
1. A Bench of two learned Judges being of the view that one of the questions which is interlinked with the interpretation of Section 9(3) of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 would be whether having regard to the provisions contained in Part IXA of the Constitution of India, 1950 the Legislature of the State of M.P. had the requisite legislative competence therefor.
Finding of the Court :
Proviso to Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam not having been challenged at any stage up to Supreme Court, there is no need to answer the reference.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. A Bench of two learned Judges being of the view that one of the questions which is interlinked with the interpretation of Section 9(3) of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (in short the ‘Adhiniyam’) would be whether having regard to the provisions contained in Part IXA of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) the Legislature of the State of M.P. had the requisite legislative competence therefor. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with basically two prayers. They are as under:
“(1) The respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Ratlam has no jurisdiction or right to claim the property tax from the petitioner for the building and the superstructure constructed in the Market Yard within the area of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam.
(2) That the amount of Rs.70,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner with respondent No.1 pursuant to the notice and auction proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be directed to be refunded to the petitioner. Interest on the said amount is also being claimed.”
2. With reference to Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam it was submitted that exemption had been provided on the property on which no property tax could be levied even if the same falls within the area of Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area, Gram Panchayat or a Special Area Development Authority. Learned Single Judge accepted the first prayer, but permitted the respondent-writ petitioner to avail such remedy as is available by filing a civil suit in respect of second prayer.
3. Review petition was filed by the present appellant which was dismissed. A Letters Patent Appeal was also filed, which was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable against an order passed in the review petition. The appeal was also without merit.
4. The basic stand in the appeal was whether the Corporation had jurisdiction and authority to assess and recover the property tax from respondent No.1 for the buildings, superstructure constructed in the market yard within the area of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam.
5. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant fairly accepted that there was no challenge to the proviso appended to sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam. It is also fairly accepted that the proviso casts out an exception.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in the absence of a challenge to the legality of the proviso, there is no question of adjudicating the issue which the reference Bench has considered to be of importance.
7. Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam so far as relevant reads as under:
“(3) Nothing contained in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959), and rules made thereunder in so far as they relate to diversion of land, revision of land revenue consequent on the change in the use of land from agriculture to any other purpose and other matters incidental thereto shall apply to land acquired by the market committee under sub-section (1) or acquired by transfer, purchase gift or otherwise and use for the purpose of establishment of a market yard or a sub-market yard:
Provided that the premises used for market yard, sub-market yard or for the purpose of the Board shall not be deemed to be included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area, Gram Panchayat or a Special Area Development Authority, as the case may be.”
8. The normal function of a proviso is to except something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. As was stated in Mullins v. Treasurer of Survey,1 [1880 (5) QBD 170], (referred to in Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha,2 (AIR 1961 SC 1596) and Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcut
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
