The Highways Act empowered the authorities to “Lop” the trees growing near by the Highway. Exercising the power, the authorities cut off the top of the trees near by the Highway. In the present context how do you interpret the expression of “Lop”? What type of interpretation do you suggest?

Facts in the Case

• The Highways Act granted the concerned authorities the power to “lop” trees that were growing near public highways.
• Acting under this provision, the authorities cut off the tops of several trees located near the highway.
• This action prompted a dispute regarding the meaning and scope of the term “lop”.
• The central question is whether cutting off the top of the tree falls within the statutory power to “lop”, or whether this action exceeded that authority.

Issues in the Case

• How should the term “lop” be interpreted within the context of the Highways Act?
• Does cutting off the top of a tree amount to “lopping”, or is it a more severe act like “felling” or “removal”?
• What type of statutory interpretation should be adopted to determine the true scope of the legislative intent behind using the word “lop”?

Principles Applied

1. Literal Rule of Interpretation
   • The term “lop” in its ordinary dictionary meaning refers to trimming or cutting branches, usually to regulate growth or remove obstructions.
   • It does not ordinarily include cutting off the entire top of a tree, which could be interpreted as a more aggressive act.
2. Contextual Interpretation (Noscitur a Sociis)
   • Words in a statute must be interpreted in context.
   • If the Act uses terms like “lop,” “trim,” or “prune,” then these should be understood in relation to each other and in the context of minimal interference with nature, sufficient to protect the highway.
   • The context suggests maintenance, not destruction.
3. Mischief Rule (Heydon’s Case)
   • The mischief the Act intended to remedy was obstruction to the highway due to overgrown trees.
   • Interpretation should be aimed at removing the mischief, not exceeding it.
   • If branches or overgrowth pose a danger or obstruction, trimming may be justified—but not excessive cutting that changes the character of the tree.
4. Doctrine of Proportionality
   • Any administrative action taken under statutory power must be proportionate to the objective sought.
   • Cutting off the entire top of the tree may be disproportionate if less invasive methods (like trimming side branches) could achieve the same purpose.

Judgment

• The term “lop” should be given its natural and limited meaning, i.e., trimming of side branches, not cutting off the entire top of the tree.
• By applying the Literal and Contextual Rules, along with the Mischief Rule, it becomes clear that the legislature did not intend to give sweeping powers to destroy or severely damage trees.
• The action of cutting off the top of trees goes beyond the scope of “lopping” and therefore exceeds the statutory authority granted by the Highways Act.
• The preferable interpretation in this context is a strict and purposive interpretation, ensuring that public safety is maintained without unnecessarily harming the environment.