9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 when a Statute is couched in negative language it is ordinarily regarded as peremptory and mandatory in nature. [See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh 11th Edition, 2008 pages 390 to 392]. As stated by Crawford "Prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 one in the proviso to Section 6) very searchingly and exhaustively. First of all, they distinguish between what may be called prohibitions against the whole world, and those against particular persons only. This distinction resembles that between judgments or rights in rem and judgments or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, taking the prohibitory text 'one is not to eat Kalanja or fermented/stale food' (na kalanjam bhakshayet), explains the idiomatic force of the phrase (na bhakshayet). He explains that the suffix 'yat' means 'shall', and that the negative particle 'not' is to be taken as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 provided by the proviso to Section 6 of the Act. He has invited our intention to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said judgment which reads:- "2. Having gone through the record of the petition and the file which is made available to us by Mr. Patil, with respect to the acquisition of lands of the Petitioners, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners 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. (2004) 1 SCC 681 wherein in paras 15 to 17 it has been observed as under :- "15. In Halsbury's Laws of Englad, 4th Edn., Vol. 26 it is stated : "A decision is given per incuriam when the Court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
