The State of Madras and Others vs The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd.

K. Veeraswami, C.J.—The appeal comes from an order of Ramaprasada Rao, J., allowing a petition to quash a demand made by the

Collector of Coimbatore on 2nd April, 1970 on the respondent to pay seigniorage fees for transport of grevillea trees from the Kottur Village on

the Anamalais, Coimbatore District. An extent of 5851 acres of land in Block Nos. 30, 31, 43 and 45 in that village was assigned to the

respondent, the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, by an order of Government dated 10th May, 1929 for cultivation of, plantation

products. The assignment was subject to certain conditions specified. One of the conditions was that the land shall be used only for the cultivation

of coffee, tea, cocoa, cinchona, cardamoms pepper, rubber or any other product that the Government may by special orders recognise as a

plantation product, or for the erection of any buildings or constructing any roads thereon, which may be necessary for effecting and supervising

such cultivation and preparing the produce for markets. It was also required by another condition that, where the forest was cleared, the assignee

should plant plantation crops within, such reasonable time as might be fixed by the Collector of Coimbatore in each case. The Government

reserved to themselves their right to a share in mines and quarries adjacent to the land and so also the right of ingress or egress for the purpose of

working the mines. We have then a condition that the grantee shall not alienate the land without the sanction of the Government to a person other

than a British subject or the subject of an Indian State. Then comes the following condition:

The grantee shall not export or sell the trees or timber which grow on the land.

There are other conditions too, but it is not necessary to refer to them for purposes of this appeal.

Grevillea trees were planted by the assignee for the purpose, as it is stated, of giving shade to the tea plantation. The assignee sought the

permission of the Collector to cut and remove 20,000 grevillea trees measuring 10,00,000 cubic feet out of the trees so planted in the developed

area. The seigniorage fees demanded by the Collector as a condition for the permission asked for amounted to Rs. 80,000. The intercession of the

Board of Revenue was solicited by the assignee. It is said:

The Board considers that G.O. Ms. No. 948, Revenue, dated 10th May, 1928 merely permitted the grantee to grow plantation crops and that

condition No. (9) of B.P. Press, 62, Revenue, dated 30th June, 1928 was imposed, as making of money through the sale of the trees was not

contemplated.

So the Board, issued, instructions to the Collector to collect the seigniorage fees as the trees were sought to be cut and cleared for commercial

purposes. This demand was quashed by Ramaprasada. Rao, J.

The ratio of the order of the learned. Judge entirely was based on the fact that the trees in question were not spontaneous growth, but planted

by the assignee, which in the opinion of the learned Judge, made a difference. In such a case, he would hold that no seigniorage fees could be

levied. We are unable to concur with this view of his on a construction of the terms of the assignment, particularly Clause 9 we have referred to.

When a question of construction arises, not only is it essential that the clause sought to be interpreted should be read and understood, having

regard to the express language used, but also the process must involve, in deducing the proper meaning a reading of the entire grant. The purpose

of the grant was to assign land for cultivation of coffee, tea, cocoa, cinchona pepper, rubber or any other product that the Government may be

special orders recognise as a plantation product. It is clear therefore that, when anything different from the enumerated kinds of plantation is sought

to be planted, previous permission of the Government is required. It is no good saying that the trees in question were planted for the purpose of

giving shade to the tea plantation. Nobody would deny that such trees were required to be planted far the purpose of protecting the tea plantation.

But on that ground we cannot read into the condition of the nrant that cultivation of coffee tea etc would also include plantation of shade trees,

because the plantation of such trees can by no stretch of imagination be brought under the word ''cultivation''. We are not told that any such

permission of the Government for planting such trees was obtained. Clause 7 reserves to the Government their right to a share in mines and

quarries adjacent to the land. The implication of this clause is that what is part of the land had not been assigned. The next clause 8 makes it further

clear that alienation of land without the sanction of the Government to a person other than a British subject or the subject of an Indian State is

inhibited and a land normally carries with it trees standing on the land, irrespective of how they grow. The sense underlying this clause as also the

purpose of the grant, namely, that the assignment was only to enable the grantee to cultivate plantations, should be borne in mind before

approaching Clause 9, which is so clear that the inhibition there extends to all trees or timber ""which grow on the land"". It is said that the word

''grow'' being intransitive, it would exclude planted trees. We are unable to agree ''Grow'' is common to both spontaneous as well as planted trees.

Undeniably both grow on land. Reading all these clauses together, we are of opinion that commercialising on trees or timber, which grow on the

land and which the assignee seeks to out and carry away for commercial purposes, is not within the scope of the grant. On that view, we allow the

appeal. No costs.