The provision for education falls within the scope of 'Harijan welfare scheme' as it aligns with the constitutional mandate and the intention of the Legislature.

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

These appeals are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 12. 2003 made in W.P.Nos.5881 and 5882 of 2000, wherein and whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein challenging the notification issued by the appellant and published in the Tiruchirappalli District Gazette No.6 dated 3. 2000 under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of 1978, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been allowed by quashing the said notification on the ground that the public purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired i.e., for construction of additional building to the Adi Dravidar Welfare Middle School, Devimangalam village is not coming under the purview of the definition of "Harijan welfare scheme" under Section 3(g) of the above said Act.

2. The lands in an extent of 0.79.0 hectares and 0.91.5 hectares owned by respondents in writ appeal Nos.4150 and 4151 of 2004 respectively, was sought to be acquired under the Act. The appellant after considering the objections from the persons interested in the land under Section 4(2) and (3) of the Act, caused a publication in Tiruchirappalli District Gazette a notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act for acquiring the lands for construction of additional building to the Government (Adi Dravida Welfare) Middle School, Devimangalam village. The respondents after unsuccessfully moving the Civil Court against the acquisition proceedings filed the writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings on several grounds as to the suitability and adaptability of the land for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired.

.3. Before the writ Court, the respondents have taken a new point to the effect that the purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired would not come within the definition of "Harijan Welfare Scheme" contained in Section 3(g) of the Act if the same is construed by applying the principle of ejusdem generis.

4. The writ Court accepted the contention of the respondents that the phraseology "for providing any other amenity to the benefit of Harijans" appearing in the definition clause should be read in ejusdem generis to the other purposes stated therein and if so construed, the purpose of construction of additional building to the Adi-Dravidar middle school cannot be regarded as "Harijan welfare scheme" in terms of the definition clause and set aside the 4(1) notification. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue in these appeals.

5. We are not able to concur with the reasoning given by the Writ Court for setting aside the notification. The principle of interpretation of the statute or a provision of a statute has been the subject matter for decision before the Apex Court in a plethora of cases. In all those cases, the Apex Court ruled that the elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the mens or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take upon itself the task of amending or alternating the statutory provisions. Wherever the language is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. While doing so, what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said has to be noted. The construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided. In case of an ordinary word there should be no attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general application. Attention should be confined to what is necessary for deciding the particular case.

.6. The Apex Court further ruled that no words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate