{"id":64670,"date":"2000-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000"},"modified":"2018-10-31T08:59:48","modified_gmt":"2018-10-31T03:29:48","slug":"the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Agricultural &#8230; vs The Plantation Corporation Of &#8230; on 29 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner Of Agricultural &#8230; vs The Plantation Corporation Of &#8230; on 29 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Raju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P.Bharucha, Doraswamy, Ruma Pal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2243-2249 1993\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX.  KERALA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.P.Bharucha, Doraswamy, Ruma Pal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Raju, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The correctness of a decision of the Full Bench of the<br \/>\nKerala\tHigh Court construing Explanation 2 to Section 5  of<br \/>\nthe  Agricultural  Income-Tax Act, 1950, inserted by  Kerala<br \/>\nAct  9\tof 1961, to be confined in its application  only  to<br \/>\nClause\t(j) of Section 5 and not to Section 5 as a whole  is<br \/>\nput   in  issue\t in  these   appeals.\tSection\t 5  of\t the<br \/>\nAgricultural   Income-Tax  Act\treads\tas   follows:\t 5.<br \/>\nComputation  of\t agricultural  income.\t&#8211;  The\tagricultural<br \/>\nincome\tof  a  person  shall be computed  after\t making\t the<br \/>\nfollowing deductions, namely :-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (a) any sums paid in the previous year on account of &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (i) land revenue or any tax in lieu thereof due to the<br \/>\nGovernment, the Sreepandaravagai or the Sreepadam;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (ii) Jenmikaram;<\/p>\n<p>      (iii) Thiruppuvaram;  and<\/p>\n<p>      (iv)  local  rates and cesses and municipal taxes,  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  the land from which the agricultural income  is<br \/>\nderived.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (b) any rent paid in the previous year to the landlord<br \/>\nor  superior  landlord,\t as the case may be, in\t respect  of<br \/>\nland, from which the agricultural income is derived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (c)  any expense incurred in the previous year on\t the<br \/>\nmaintenance of any irrigation or protective work constructed<br \/>\nfor  the  benefit  of the land from which  the\tagricultural<br \/>\nincome is derived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      Explanation  &#8211; Maintenance includes current  repairs<br \/>\nand  includes  also,  in the case of  protective  dykes\t and<br \/>\nembankments  all such work as may be necessary from year  to<br \/>\nyear for repairing any damage or destruction caused by flood<br \/>\nor other natural causes.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (d)  any\texpenses  incurred in the previous  year  on<br \/>\nrepairs\t in respect of any capital asset which was purchased<br \/>\nor  constructed for the benefits of the land from which\t the<br \/>\nagricultural income is derived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (e)  any\tinterest  paid in the previous year  on\t any<br \/>\namount\t borrowed   and\t actually   spent  on  any   capital<br \/>\nexpenditure  incurred for the benefit of the land from which<br \/>\nthe agricultural income is derived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (f)  where land from which the agricultural income  is<br \/>\nderived\t is  subject to a mortgage or other capital  charge,<br \/>\nany  interest  paid in the previous year in respect of\tsuch<br \/>\nmortgage or charge;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (g)  any\tinterest  paid in the previous year  on\t any<br \/>\ndebt,  whether\tsecured or not, incurred for the purpose  of<br \/>\nacquiring  the\tland from which the agricultural  income  is<br \/>\nderived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (h)  any sum paid in the previous year as interest  in<br \/>\nrespect of agricultural loans taken and expended on the land<br \/>\nfrom which agricultural income is derived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (i)  interest paid on any amount borrowed and actually<br \/>\nspent\tfor  the  purpose  of  re-claiming,   improving\t  or<br \/>\ncultivating  the property from which agricultural income  is<br \/>\nderived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (j)  any\texpenditure  (not  being in  the  nature  of<br \/>\ncapital\t expenditure  or personal expenses of the  assessee)<br \/>\nlaid  out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose<br \/>\nof deriving the agricultural income;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (k)  such\t other\tdeductions  as\tmay  be\t  prescribed<br \/>\ngenerally or in particular cases;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (l)   in\trespect\t of   depreciation   of\t  buildings,<br \/>\nmachinery, plant and furniture which are the property of the<br \/>\nassessee  and  are required for the purpose of deriving\t the<br \/>\nagricultural  income, a sum equivalent to such percentage on<br \/>\nthe  written down value, thereof as may in any case or class<br \/>\nof  cases  be prescribed and where the buildings  have\tbeen<br \/>\nnewly  erected\tor the machinery or plant newly installed  a<br \/>\nfurther sum subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided\t that  full  particulars   have\t been\tduly<br \/>\nfurnished:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided\tfurther\t that  the  aggregate  of  all\tsuch<br \/>\nallowances  made under this Act shall in no case exceed\t the<br \/>\noriginal  cost to the assessee of the buildings,  machinery,<br \/>\nplant or furniture, as the case may be;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (m)  in the case of agricultural income under the head<br \/>\nrent  or revenue derived from land referred to in sub-clause<br \/>\n(1)  of clause (a) of section 2 &#8211; (agricultural income\tfrom<br \/>\nrent or revenue) :-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (i)  any\texpenses actually incurred in  the  previous<br \/>\nyear in the collection of agricultural income;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (ii)  any\t expenses incurred in the previous  year  on<br \/>\nrepairs\t in respect of any capital asset used in  connection<br \/>\nwith  the collection of rent due in respect of the land from<br \/>\nwhich the agricultural income is derived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (n)  in the case of agricultural income referred to in<br \/>\nsub-clause   (2)   of  the  clause   (a)  of  section  2   &#8211;<br \/>\n(agricultural income from agriculture) :-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (i)  the\texpenses  other\t  than\tcapital\t expenditure<br \/>\nincurred  in the previous year of cultivating the crop\tfrom<br \/>\nwhich the agricultural income is derived and of transporting<br \/>\nsuch   crop   to  market,   including  the  maintenance\t  of<br \/>\nagricultural  implements  and  cattle\trequired  for\tsuch<br \/>\ncultivation and transport or both;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (ii)  any tax, cess or rate paid on the cultivation or<br \/>\nsale  of  the  crop from which such agricultural  income  is<br \/>\nderived;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (iii)  the  cost incurred in the previous year in\t the<br \/>\npurchase  of replacement of cattle or implements, which\t are<br \/>\nnecessary  for\tcultivation,  to  such\t extent\t as  may  be<br \/>\nprescribed,  less the amount realized by sale of the  cattle<br \/>\nor implements replaced or their estimated value;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (iv)  any\t sum paid in the previous year in  order  to<br \/>\neffect\tan  insurance  against loss or damage  of  crops  or<br \/>\nproperty  from\twhich the agricultural income is derived  or<br \/>\ninsurance  against  loss or damage in respect  of  building,<br \/>\nmachinery,  plant and furniture necessary for the purpose of<br \/>\nderiving  the agricultural income:  Provided that any amount<br \/>\nreceived  in respect of such insurance in any year shall  be<br \/>\ndeemed\tto  be agricultural income for the purposes of\tthis<br \/>\nAct,  and  shall be liable to agricultural income-tax  after<br \/>\ndeducting  the\tportion,  thereof, if any,  which  has\tbeen<br \/>\nassessed  to  income-tax  under the Indian  Income-tax\tAct,<br \/>\n1922;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (v)  any expenses incurred in the previous year on the<br \/>\nmaintenance  of\t any  capital asset if such  maintenance  is<br \/>\nrequired  for  the  purposes of\t deriving  the\tagricultural<br \/>\nincome:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided\tthat  no deduction shall be made under\tthis<br \/>\nsection\t if it has already been made in the assessment under<br \/>\nthe Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Explanation 1 &#8211; For the purpose of this section paid<br \/>\nmeans  actually paid or incurred according to the method  of<br \/>\naccounting  upon  the basis of which agricultural income  is<br \/>\ncomputed under this section;\n<\/p>\n<p>      Plant  includes  vehicles and  Scientific\t apparatus<br \/>\npurchased  for\tthe  purpose of\t deriving  the\tagricultural<br \/>\nincome;\t and written down value means-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (i)  in  the case of assets acquired in  the  previous<br \/>\nyear, the actual cost to the assessee and<\/p>\n<p>      (ii)  in\tthe  case  of  assets  acquired\t before\t the<br \/>\nprevious year the actual cost to the assessees less such sum<br \/>\nas may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Explanation  2  &#8211;\t Nothing contained in  this  section<br \/>\nshall  be  deemed to entitle a person deriving\tagricultural<br \/>\nincome\tto deduction of any expenditure laid out or expended<br \/>\nfor  the  cultivation,\tupkeep or  maintenance\tof  immature<br \/>\nplants\tfrom  which no agricultural income has been  derived<br \/>\nduring the previous year.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The appeals before us relate to three Assessment Years<br \/>\n1975-  76, 1976-77 and 1977-78.\t Revisions came to be  filed<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  High Court in respect of the  three  assessment<br \/>\nyears\tagainst\t the  original\t remand\t orders\t and  orders<br \/>\nsubsequently  passed by the Tribunal on appeals filed before<br \/>\nit against orders giving effect to earlier orders of remand.<br \/>\nThe  respondent-assessee  projected claims for deduction  of<br \/>\nthe  rent  paid\t to its landlord in respect  of\t the  entire<br \/>\nestate\tincluding  the\tarea covered by\t immature  oil\tpalm<br \/>\nplants, which did not as also could not yield any income and<br \/>\ninterest  paid\ton  the loan obtained and utilised  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose of cultivation etc.  in respect of the entire estate<br \/>\ncomprising  both  mature  yielding  as\twell  as  unyielding<br \/>\nimmature  oil  palm  plants.   It  is  in  adjudicating\t the<br \/>\ntenability  or otherwise of these claims that the High Court<br \/>\nhas  chosen to consider the role of Explanation 2 to Section<br \/>\n5  and\theld that Explanation 2 is to be an  Explanation  to<br \/>\nonly  Section  5  (j) and not to the  other  sub-clauses  of<br \/>\nSection\t 5.   The  High Court has chosen to come to  such  a<br \/>\nconclusion  despite the opening words used, nothing in this<br \/>\nsection..  in Explanation 2 by adopting and applying  what<br \/>\nit chose to describe as internal as well as external aids of<br \/>\nconstruction.\tIn  the\t opinion  of  the  High\t Court,\t its<br \/>\nconclusion  about  the\tlimited role  and  applicability  of<br \/>\nExplanation  2 only to Section 5 (j) arrived at on the basis<br \/>\nof  internal  aids  gets   confirmed  by  construction\twith<br \/>\nreference to external aids also.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Heard   the   learned    senior\t counsel   for\t the<br \/>\nappellant-State\t  and\tthe   learned\t counsel   for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-assessee.  Section 5 in providing for computation<br \/>\nof  agricultural  income  for  the   purposes  of  the\t Act<br \/>\nstipulates that the agricultural income of a person shall be<br \/>\ncomputed  after making the various deductions enumerated  in<br \/>\nClauses\t (a) to (n) to the extent mentioned and also in\t the<br \/>\nmanner\tspecified  therein.  It is an admitted position\t and<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  also proceeded on such basis\tonly  having<br \/>\nregard\tto some of the decisions of this Court as well as of<br \/>\nthe  Kerala  High Court that Clause (j) of Section 5 of\t the<br \/>\nAct  is\t in  the nature of a residuary provision,  in  which<br \/>\nevent  in  our\tview, it necessarily means  that  the  other<br \/>\nclauses\t are in relation to a few of the enumerated items of<br \/>\nexpenditure  envisaged for deduction and the mere fact\tthat<br \/>\nsome  alone are illustrated specifically do not render those<br \/>\nprovisions  to\tbe read in a truncated or disjointed  manner<br \/>\nfrom  the  residuary  clause ignoring the avowed  object  of<br \/>\nSection\t 5  as\ta whole, viz., computation  of\tagricultural<br \/>\nincome,\t as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act after making<br \/>\nthe  deductions\t to  which an assessee\tis  found  eligible.<br \/>\nThus,  viewed when Explanation 2 specifically use the words,<br \/>\nnothing contained in this section shall be  expressing a<br \/>\nspecific  intention to encompass the entire Section 5 of the<br \/>\nAct  reading  it otherwise and to confine its relevance\t and<br \/>\napplication  to only clause (j) of Section 5 would amount to<br \/>\nnot only rewriting the statutory provision by the Court, but<br \/>\nalso  doing violence to the plain and simple language  used.<br \/>\nWhen  an  Explanation  or Proviso was to apply\tto  any\t one<br \/>\nclause\tor  limb  alone of Section 5,  the  legislature\t has<br \/>\nchosen\tto  incorporate it even in the very Section 5  below<br \/>\nthe  specific  or  particular clause which it was  meant  to<br \/>\nexplain or except as in clause (c) or (l) and (n).  The fact<br \/>\nthat  instead  of  doing  so  the  Explanation\t2  has\tbeen<br \/>\nincorporated  at the end of Section 5 along side Explanation<br \/>\n1,  which  also\t use  the words for  the  purpose  of  this<br \/>\nsection..,  the\t intention  of\tthe  legislature  must\tbe<br \/>\nconsidered   to\t have  been   made  certain,  positive\t and<br \/>\nunambiguous,  leaving no room or scope whatsoever for having<br \/>\nrecourse   to\teither\tinternal  or   external\t  aids\t for<br \/>\ninterpretation or construction of the said provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  High\t Court appears to have been carried away  by<br \/>\nthe  fact  of  some  assumed similarity of  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\nexpenditure  envisaged in Section 5 (j) and those covered by<br \/>\nExplanation  2\tand from the further fact  of  retrospective<br \/>\neffect having been given to the said Explanation with effect<br \/>\nfrom  1.4.51,  to presume that in doing so  the\t legislative<br \/>\nintention  indicated  was  to avoid refunds  being  made  on<br \/>\naccount\t of the Supreme Court judgment reported in (1961) 41<br \/>\nITR  751 SC:  Travancore Rubber &amp; Tea Co.  Ltd.\t case which,<br \/>\nin  turn,  concerned Section 5 (j) of the Act.\tThis in\t our<br \/>\nview  is fallacious and cannot be so presumed.\tThe decision<br \/>\nof  the\t Supreme Court declaring the position of law on\t the<br \/>\nscope  of Section 5 (j) might have been the occasion for the<br \/>\nlegislature  to\t enact\tExplanation  2, and  that  too\twith<br \/>\nretrospective  effect  but  the\t said  occasion\t would\thave<br \/>\nequally\t enlightened  and served as an eye opener about\t the<br \/>\nneed  for  enacting the Explanation in such a manner  as  to<br \/>\navoid\tsimilar\t claims\t being\t projected  in\trespect\t  of<br \/>\nexpenditure  or\t deductions envisaged in the  various  other<br \/>\nlimbs  of  Section 5 as well, apart from clause\t (j)  alone.<br \/>\nThis  Court  has  always  been\t reiterating  that  if\t the<br \/>\nintendment  is not in the words used it is nowhere else\t and<br \/>\nso  long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory  language<br \/>\nresort\t to  any  interpretative   process  to\tunfold\t the<br \/>\nlegislative  intent  becomes impermissible and the need\t for<br \/>\ninterpretation arises only when the words in the statute are<br \/>\non  their  own\tterms  ambivalent and do  not  manifest\t the<br \/>\nintention  of the legislature.\t(vide 1988 (2) SCC 299\t(M\/s<br \/>\nDoypack Systems Pvt.  Ltd.  etc.  vs.  Union of India &amp; Ors.<br \/>\netc.) and 1990 (2) SCC 231 <a href=\"\/doc\/1671011\/\">(M\/s Keshavji Ravji &amp; Co.  &amp; Ors.<br \/>\nvs.  Commissioner of Income Tax).  That<\/a> apart an Explanation<br \/>\nis intended to either explain the meaning of certain phrases<br \/>\nand  expressions  contained  in\t a  statutory  provision  or<br \/>\ndepending  upon\t its language it might supply or  take\taway<br \/>\nsomething from the contents of a provision and at times even<br \/>\nto,  by\t way of abundant caution, clear any  mental  cobwebs<br \/>\nsurrounding  the  meaning of a statutory provision  spun  by<br \/>\ninterpretative\t process  to  make   the   position   beyond<br \/>\ncontroversy or doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Consequently,  we are unable to approve the  reasoning<br \/>\nof  the\t High  Court as to the need for having\trecourse  to<br \/>\ninternal  or external aids to interpret the Explanation 2 to<br \/>\nSection 5 as well as its ultimate conclusion to whittle down<br \/>\nthe  otherwise\twide  range  and   area\t of  operation\t and<br \/>\napplication of Explanation 2 to the entirety of Section 5 of<br \/>\nthe  Act.   In our view, Explanation 2 to Section 5  of\t the<br \/>\nAct,  therefore\t explains  generally  as  to  what  are\t not<br \/>\ndeductible  as expenditure for the purpose of computing\t the<br \/>\nagricultural  income in the light of the various clauses  of<br \/>\nSection 5 of the Act, as a whole.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  appeals  pertaining to all the  assessment  years<br \/>\ninvolve\t in common the question of deduction of rent and the<br \/>\nfurther\t question  of deduction of interest arises  only  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the appeals for the assessment years 1975-76 and<br \/>\n1976-77.   The claims of the respondent, be it in respect of<br \/>\nrent  or  interest paid to the creditors by the assessee  on<br \/>\nthe  loans  obtained  and  utilised   for  the\tpurpose\t  of<br \/>\ncultivation etc.  shall not be eligible for deduction so far<br \/>\nas it relates to the respective portions spent in respect of<br \/>\nland or the bringing up of the immature oil palm plantation.<br \/>\nThe appeals, therefore, have to be and are allowed.  Cost on<br \/>\nparties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Commissioner Of Agricultural &#8230; vs The Plantation Corporation Of &#8230; on 29 November, 2000 Author: Raju Bench: S.P.Bharucha, Doraswamy, Ruma Pal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2243-2249 1993 PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX. KERALA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/11\/2000 BENCH: S.P.Bharucha, Doraswamy, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs The Plantation Corporation Of ... on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs The Plantation Corporation Of ... on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-31T03:29:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Agricultural &#8230; vs The Plantation Corporation Of &#8230; on 29 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-31T03:29:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2362,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs The Plantation Corporation Of ... on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-31T03:29:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Agricultural &#8230; vs The Plantation Corporation Of &#8230; on 29 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs The Plantation Corporation Of ... on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs The Plantation Corporation Of ... on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-31T03:29:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Agricultural &#8230; vs The Plantation Corporation Of &#8230; on 29 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-31T03:29:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000"},"wordCount":2362,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000","name":"The Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs The Plantation Corporation Of ... on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-31T03:29:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-agricultural-vs-the-plantation-corporation-of-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Agricultural &#8230; vs The Plantation Corporation Of &#8230; on 29 November, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64670","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64670\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}