TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which were our traditional principles of interpretation for over 2500 years, but which are unfortunately ignored in our Courts of law today. In the Mimansa system illustrations of many principles of interpretation are given in the form of maxims (nyayas) . The negative injunction is illustrated by the Kalanja nyaya or Kalanja maxim. The Kalanja maxim (na kalanjam bhakshayet) states that `a general condemnatory text is to be understood not only as prohibiting an act, but also the tendency, including the intention and attempt to do it.' It is thus mandatory. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 6 shows that it is a general prohibition against the whole world and not against a particular person. Hence the Kalanja maxim of the Mimansa system will in our opinion apply to the proviso to Section 6. In fact, a Constitution bench decision of this Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Others Vs. State of T.N. And Others [ 2002 (3) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT] is clearly in support of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the proviso to Section 6 is mandatory, and hence the Notification u/s 6 dated 30.10.2006 is time barred. In our opinion, when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 'the Act') was issued in respect of the land in question on 29.8.2002. Thereafter a Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.6.2003. The said Notification under Section 6 was challenged and the writ petition filed by the appellants was allowed on 20.1.2004 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 18.06.2003 was quashed. Subsequently a second Notification under Section 6 dated 30.10.2006 was issued by the State Government. 5. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Notification under Section 6 dated 30.10.2006 is valid. In our opinion, the said Notification was clearly barred by clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6 of the Act which reads as under :- [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),- (i) ........ ......... ....... (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification; It can be seen from the aforesaid proviso to Section 6 that it is couched in negative language. It is well settled that wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tis, e.g., Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti, or ambiguity or absurdity in any Smriti these principles were utilized. Thus, the Mimansa Principles were our traditional system of interpretation of legal texts. Although originally they were created for interpreting religious texts pertaining to the Yagya (sacrifice), gradually they came to be utilized for interpreting legal texts also (see in this connection P.V. Kane's `History of the Dharmashastra', Vol.V, Pt.II, Ch.XXIX and Ch.XXX, pp. 1282-1351), and also for interpreting texts on philosophy, grammar, etc. i.e. they became of universal application. Thus, Shankaracharya has used the Mimansa adhikaranas in his bhashya on the Vedanta sutras. 9. While the first edition of Maxwell's book was published in 1875, in India we have been doing interpretation for over 2500 years, as already stated above. There were hundreds of books (all in Sanskrit) written on the subject, though only a few dozens have survived the ravages of time, but even these show how deep our ancestors went into the subject of interpretation. 10. To give an example the Mimansakas examine the subject of negative Vidhis (negative injunctions such as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h as the one contained in the proviso to Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act) there is a much deeper discussion on the subject than that done by Western Jurists. The Western writers on the subject of interpretation (like Maxwell, Craies, etc.) only say that ordinarily negative words are mandatory, but there is no deeper discussion on the subject, no classification of the kinds of negative injunctions and their effects. 13. In the Mimansa system illustrations of many principles of interpretation are given in the form of maxims (nyayas). The negative injunction is illustrated by the Kalanja nyaya or Kalanja maxim. 14. The Kalanja maxim (na kalanjam bhakshayet) states that `a general condemnatory text is to be understood not only as prohibiting an act, but also the tendency, including the intention and attempt to do it.' It is thus mandatory. 15. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act shows that it is a general prohibition against the whole world and not against a particular person. Hence the Kalanja maxim of the Mimansa system will in our opinion apply to the proviso to Section 6. 16. Laughakshi Bhaskara, one of the great Mimansa writers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the proviso to Section 6 is mandatory, and hence the Notification under Section 6 dated 30.10.2006 is time barred. In our opinion, when the language of the Statute is plain and clear then the literal rule of interpretation has to be applied and there is ordinarily no scope for consideration of equity, public interest or seeking the intention of the legislature. It is only when the language of the Statute is not clear or ambiguous or there is some conflict etc. or the plain language leads to some absurdity that one can depart from the literal rule of interpretation. 19. A perusal of the proviso to Section 6 shows that the language of the proviso is clear. Hence the literal rule of interpretation must be applied to it. When there is a conflict between the law and equity it is the law which must prevail. As stated in the Latin Maxim 'Dura Lex Sed Lex' which means the law is hard but it is the law . 20. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respondents submitted that the judgment of the High Court dated 20.1.2004 permitted the authorities to issue a second Section 6 Notification even beyond the time pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment dated 20.1.2004 in the earlier writ petition No. 9248/2003 is res judicata and since the said judgment was not challenged before this Court, it had become final. He submitted that in the aforesaid judgment it had been clearly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions from the petitioners that the objection with respect to the limitation period within which the second Section 6 Notification will be issued will not be raised by the petitioners if the petitioners are finally aggrieved by the Section 5A report and subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, he submitted that now no objection can be taken in the present proceedings urging the bar of limitation provided in clause (ii) to the proviso to Section 6 of the Act. 23. In this connection, we wish to state that no statement or concession of a learned counsel can override a mandatory statutory provision. 24. Moreover, the observations in para 3 of the judgment dated 20.1.2004 have to be regarded as per incuriam. In this connection we may refer to the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Parasu Kaikadi (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Babu (Dead) through Lrs. (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
