# E TRUST BOARD v. H. NARA Y.ANAIAH ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 178
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 644 to 650 of 1974
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/e-trust-board-v-h-nara-y-anaiah-etc-etc-6901
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Lalld acquisition-City of Bangaldre Improvement Ac:, 1945, ss. 16,
18
and 27-Notification u/lder ss. 16 and 18 011 different dates-Date for determining market value for awarding compellsation for acquisiti01i of land.
Evidence Act (1 of 1872) s. 43 and Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908)
0. 41, 27-Admission of Judgme/lfs in land acquisition proceedings as atlditional evidence.
The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, is coilcerned with
the
improvement and future expansion of the city, and for the appointment of a
Board of Trustees with special powers to carry out that purpose.
As an incident of such improvement and expansion, it provides for acquisition of !and
also. Section 16 of the Act provides for the publication of a notice so that
any representations which objectors may make
may be considered by the
Board itself under s. 17.
The object of the two sections is to provide for the
notification similar to that uhder s. 4(1), My;ore Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and for hearing of objections as under s. SA, of that Act.
Section 18 of the
Bangalore Act provides for the publication in the Gazette of the declaration
that the land is acquired for a public; purpose.
Section 27 provides that acquisitions otherwise than by agreement, shall be regulated by the provision, of the
Acquisition Act in so far as they are applicable and by certai.n further provisions in the• section .. Section 27 (1) provides that upon the passing of a ·resolu.-
tion by the Board that an improvement scheme uhder s. 14 is nece,sary in
.respect of any locality, it shall be lawful for any person, autl1orised by the
Board to do all s·uch acts in respect of the land as it would be lawful for an
officer duly authorised by the Government under s. 4(2) of the Acquisition
Act; and under s. 27(2) the publication of a declaration under s. 18 shalt be
deemed to be the publication of a declaration under s. 6, Acquisition Act.
Jn the present case, the notification• under s. 16 of the Bangalore Act were
issued in 1960 and the notifications uhder s. !8 were published in 1967. On
the question as to which date was to be taken for the determination of the
market value for the purpose of awarding compensation, the High Court held
that the date of notification under s. 18 is the relevant d;ite. Ihe High. Court
held that decision of Full Bench of the High Court in Venkatamma v. Special
Land Acquis<ition Officer (AIR 1972 Mysore 193) covered the question; and
it also relied on another decision of the Court, determining compensation with
respect of the acquisition of certain other lands, as relevaht evidence for the
purpose of determining compensation in the instant case. In appeal to this
Court the respondent also supported the judgment of the High Court on the
grouhd that 9. 23 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act which provides that the determination of the market value should be as on the date of the. publicatloh of a notification under s. 41(1), would not apply, because, (a) no principle1 or procedure
governing award of compensation is specified in the Ban11:alore Act, (b) the
words "so far as applicable", used ih s. 27, are equivalent to "in sc far as thev
are specifically mentioned"; and s. 23 ( 1) i• not so specifically mentioned; and.
( c) since no procedure or principle is laid down for the award of compensation
in the Bangalore Act, it would be equitable to hold that the market value should
be determined with reference to the later date of the notification under s. 18 of
the Act.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The matter should be remanded to the High Court for determination of the market value of the' land as on the date of the notification under
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICRR V. H. NARAYANAIAH (Beg, J.)
17.9
s. 16 of the Bangalore Avt, which corresponds to the notification under s. 4( l)
of the Acquisition Act, after affording opportunities to the partie~ whether the
judgment sought to be offered as additional evidence could be so admitted shall
be decided. [193 E-F]
( l )(a) The

## Text

_Characters 0–39,793 of 48,778. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39793 for what follows._

178
A
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENT
·C
D
:E
TRUST BOARD
v.
H. NARA Y.ANAIAH ETC. ETC.
August 16, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Lalld acquisition-City of Bangaldre Improvement Ac:, 1945, ss. 16,
18
and 27-Notification u/lder ss. 16 and 18 011 different dates-Date for determining market value for awarding compellsation for acquisiti01i of land.
Evidence Act (1 of 1872) s. 43 and Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908)
0. 41, 27-Admission of Judgme/lfs in land acquisition proceedings as atlditional evidence.
The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, is coilcerned with
the
improvement and future expansion of the city, and for the appointment of a
Board of Trustees with special powers to carry out that purpose.
As an incident of such improvement and expansion, it provides for acquisition of !and
also. Section 16 of the Act provides for the publication of a notice so that
any representations which objectors may make
may be considered by the
Board itself under s. 17.
The object of the two sections is to provide for the
notification similar to that uhder s. 4(1), My;ore Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and for hearing of objections as under s. SA, of that Act.
Section 18 of the
Bangalore Act provides for the publication in the Gazette of the declaration
that the land is acquired for a public; purpose.
Section 27 provides that acquisitions otherwise than by agreement, shall be regulated by the provision, of the
Acquisition Act in so far as they are applicable and by certai.n further provisions in the• section .. Section 27 (1) provides that upon the passing of a ·resolu.-
tion by the Board that an improvement scheme uhder s. 14 is nece,sary in
.respect of any locality, it shall be lawful for any person, autl1orised by the
Board to do all s·uch acts in respect of the land as it would be lawful for an
officer duly authorised by the Government under s. 4(2) of the Acquisition
Act; and under s. 27(2) the publication of a declaration under s. 18 shalt be
deemed to be the publication of a declaration under s. 6, Acquisition Act.
Jn the present case, the notification• under s. 16 of the Bangalore Act were
issued in 1960 and the notifications uhder s. !8 were published in 1967. On
the question as to which date was to be taken for the determination of the
market value for the purpose of awarding compensation, the High Court held
that the date of notification under s. 18 is the relevant d;ite. Ihe High. Court
held that decision of Full Bench of the High Court in Venkatamma v. Special
Land Acquis<ition Officer (AIR 1972 Mysore 193) covered the question; and
it also relied on another decision of the Court, determining compensation with
respect of the acquisition of certain other lands, as relevaht evidence for the
purpose of determining compensation in the instant case. In appeal to this
Court the respondent also supported the judgment of the High Court on the
grouhd that 9. 23 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act which provides that the determination of the market value should be as on the date of the. publicatloh of a notification under s. 41(1), would not apply, because, (a) no principle1 or procedure
governing award of compensation is specified in the Ban11:alore Act, (b) the
words "so far as applicable", used ih s. 27, are equivalent to "in sc far as thev
are specifically mentioned"; and s. 23 ( 1) i• not so specifically mentioned; and.
( c) since no procedure or principle is laid down for the award of compensation
in the Bangalore Act, it would be equitable to hold that the market value should
be determined with reference to the later date of the notification under s. 18 of
the Act.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The matter should be remanded to the High Court for determination of the market value of the' land as on the date of the notification under
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICRR V. H. NARAYANAIAH (Beg, J.)
17.9
s. 16 of the Bangalore Avt, which corresponds to the notification under s. 4( l)
of the Acquisition Act, after affording opportunities to the partie~ whether the
judgment sought to be offered as additional evidence could be so admitted shall
be decided. [193 E-F]
( l )(a) The Full Bench of the High Court, while interpreting the City of
Mysore Improvement ht, 1903, observed that the Acquisition Act had been
amended in 1927 so as to make compensation payable as on th.e date of the
notification under s. 4( 1) of that Act instead of the date of noufication under
s. 6 according to the unamended law and but that, in the Mysore Act, there
was no corresponding amendment. Therefore, the My;'Ore Act had to
be
construed with reference to the provision~ ·of the Land Acquisition Act as it
stood in 1903 .. [182 F-G]
But, the Bangalore Act, even thou~ its corresponds substantially with the
p110visions of the Mysore Act of 1903, should be interpreted with reference to
the Acquisition Act as it stood in 1945, because, the Bangalore
Act
was
enacted in 19'45. [182 HJ
(b) The Full Bench also held that if there was Jong delay between the two
notifications, the acquisition itself would be unconstitutional, and therefore the
date of notification under ·s. 18 would be the relevant date. The delay between
the dates of notification under s. 16 and under s. 18 would not have any
bearing on the question of the date on which the market value is to be determined, because, if a particular acquisition becomes unconstitutional due to an
unreasonable mode oi' exercising the statutory powers of acquisition, the meaning of provisions, which are relevant for determining the date of market value,
could not be affected.
[183 F-H, 184 A]
(2) Under s. 43, Evidence Act, judgments other than those falling under
ss. 40 to 42, Evidence Act are irrelevant unless they fall under some other
provisions of the Evidence Act. 1h the present ca>e, the earlier judgment of
•he High Court cannot operate as res-judicata because it
i~ not between the
same parties.
Such judgments are also not judgments in rem.
However, in
Khaja Fizuddin v. State of Andhra Prade~h (CA. No .. 176 dt. 10-4-1963) this
Court held that such judgments would be relevant if they relate' to similarly
situated properties and contain determinations of value on dates fairly proximate to the relevant date in a case.
But, in the present case, the appellant was
not given any opportunity of !!bowing that the earl'er judgment related to dissL
milar land.
The High Court also did not comply with the provisions of 0.41.
r. 27, C.P.C. before admitting the earlier jud~e'nt as addiuonaI evidence. It
had recorded no reasons to show that it had considered the requirements of
the rule and why it found the admission of such evidence to be neces<0ary.
[19,l G-H, 192 B-H 19'3 A-B]
Special Land Acqui$ltion Officer, Bombay v. Lakhmmi Ghel.ablzai, AIR 1960
Born. 78, referred to.
(3 )(a) Section 27 of the Bangalore Avt enables the procedure in the Acquition Act to be utilised except tci the extent to which the procedure in the
Bangalore Act may differ from that in the Acquisition Act. These differences
in s. 27(1) and (2); are: (i) that the Board of Trustees could do the things
provided for in s'. 4(2) of the Acquisition Act without a notification under
s. 4(1); and (ii) the notification under s. 18 of the Bangalore Act is equated
to the one under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore. even though
s. 23 of the Adquisition Act is not specificallv mentioned in the Bangalore Act.
the obvious' purpose of the opening words of s. 27 of the Bangalore Act, and
the effect of non-specification of a different principle in the Bangalore Act. is
tlat the award of compensation, which is a necessary part of any Jaw providing for acquisition fl!USt be governed by s. 23 of the Acquisition Act. which
is· the only provis1on applica'bld for determining the date
of market value.
[189 D-GJ
(b) The words
·~so far as they are applicable" cannot he eauated to '·in
so far as they are specifically mentioned."
The words are used to exclude
only those provisions of the acquisition Act which become inappiicable1 because
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
180
SUPREME COURT Rf:PORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
of the special procedure prescribed by the Bangalore Act.
They cannot be
construed as excluding the application of general provisions such as s. 23 of
the Acquisition Act.
They amount to stating that what is not either expr~ssly
or by necessary implication excluded must be applied. [190 H, 191 A-BJ
(c) Equity supplements but does not supplaht law.
If, in the face of the
provision that the notification under s. 18, Bangalore Act is equated with a
noffication under s. 6 of the Acquisition Act for the purpose of determining
the market value for awarding compensation, some transcendental principle ot'
equity is applied, then' it would be supplanting the law laid down in s. 27
of the Bangalore Act read with s .. 23 of the Acquisition Act. It would aho be
absurd to hold that a notification under s.18, Bangalore Act, could be equated
with a notification uhder s. 4( 1) Acquisition Act.
Therefore, the relevant date
would be the date of notification under s. 16, because, the objects achieved by
a notification under s. 16, Bahgalore Act, and -one und·er s. 4, Acquisition Act
are identical.
In the Full Bench decisio·n of the High Court, it was held,
rel~ng on s. 23 of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 that s. 14 of
that \Act should be equated to s. 4 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act.
But in view of
the provisions of r. 27 of the B~ngalore Act, the only result of equating a
resolution under s. 14 of 1he Banga~ore Act with a notificatio11 under s. 4 ( 1 )
of the Acquisition Act would be to shift the date of ascertaihing of market value
still further back which is not the contention of the. re.opondents. [ 191 A. F]
OBITER: An additional compliance with s. 4(1) of the
Acquisition
Act
is hot necessary in view of the special procedure und~r s. 16 of the 13angalore
Act; and, it would be reasonahle for the authorities to exercise the powers
provided for by s. 27(1) of the Bangalore Act, corres-ponding to those in
s. 4(2) of the Acquisition Act. only after the notification under s. 16 of the
Bangalore Act., [185 B1C]
M. Manicklal v. The State of Mysore 1967 (2) M.L.J. 239 approved.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 644-650/74.
F
G
H
(Appeals by Special Le•ave from the Judgment and Order dated
21-6-1975 of. the Kamataka High Court in Misc. First Appeal Nos.
77, 444-450/70 respectively).
A. K. Sen, V. M. Tarkunde, H. B. Datar and R. B. Datar for the
appellant.
S. Rangaraj, M. Qamaruddin, P. N. Puri, S. K. Mehta for Mr.
K. R. Nagaraja, for respondent in CA. No. 644/74.
A. R. Somnath Tyer.
S. Laxminarasu,
for respondents in CA.
Nos. 645-650/74.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J.
Civil Appeals Nos. 644 to 650 of 1974 are by special'
leave against the judgment of a Division Bench o~ the Karnataka High
Court.
The common and principal question of law which arises is :
Does the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the Bangalore Act') applying the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acquisition Act'), to acquisitions of land in
Banga!ore require t~e determination of market value, for purposes of
awardmg compensat10n, on a date corresponding to the date of notifi-
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. H. NARAYANAJAH (Beg, J.) 181
cation under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act or to the date corresponding to that ofi the notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition
Act
The facts of the case.9 are not really material for the determination
of the question of law stated above. A few ~acts relating to the lands
acquired may, however, be mentioned. They have a bearing on a
connected question dealt with at the end of this judgment.
The seven appeals by special leave arise out ~ land acquisition
proceedings; in which the 1st of the preliminary notifications, under
Section 16 of the Bangalore Act, took place in the Mysore Gazette
from 1960 onwards; and, the subsequent notifications, under Section
A
B
18 of the Bangalore Act, equated by Section 27(2) of the Bangalore
C
Act with notifications under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act, were
made in 1967. All the lands involved in these appeals are situated in
Binnamangala Village, Bangalore North Taluk, and are .shown to have
been acquired for the purposes. of a scheme known as 'Bhinnamangala
Lay Out II Stage or Indira N agar Extension'.
The Bangalore Act, as its pre-amble states, is really concerned
with the "improvement and future expansion of the City of Bangalore
and fOT the appointment of a Board of Trustees with .special powers
to carry out the aforesaid purposes;". As an incident of this improvement and expansion it provides for acquisition of land also. It does
not, however, contain a separate code of its own for such acquisitions.
But, Section 27 of the Bangalore Act lays down:
"27. Provisionsi applicable by the acquisition of land
otherwise than by agreement-The acquisition
otherwise
than by agreement of land within or without the City under
this Act shall be regulated by the provisions, ·SO far as they
are applicable, of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and by the following further provisions, namely :-
( 1) Upon the passing of a resolution by the Board that
an improvement scheme under Section 14 is necessary in respect of any locality, it shall be lawful for any person either
generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf
and for his servants and workmen, to do all such acts on or
in respect orf land in that locality as it would be lawful for an
officer duly authodsed by the Government to act under Section 4(2) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for
his servants and workmen to do thereunder; and the provision contained in Section 5 of the said Act shall likewise be
applicable in respect of damage caused by any of the acts first
mentioned.
(2) The publication of a declaration under section 18
shall be deemed to be the publication of a declaration under
section 6 of the Mysore: Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
(3) For the purposes of section 50(2) of the Mysore
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Board shall be deemed to
be the local authority concerned.
(4) A;flter the land vests in the G-Overnment under section
16. of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Deputy
Commisisioner shall, upon payment of the cost of the acquisition, and upon the Board agreeing to pay any further costs
which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the Board, and the land shall thereupon vested
in the Board".
The Mysore Land Acquisition Act of 1894 exactly reproduces our
Central Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894.
Therefore, the term 'Acquisition Act' in this judgment covers references to both the Mysore Land
Acquisition Act as well as the Central Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894.
It was stated by Counsel that the Mysore Land Acquisition Act was
also correspondingly amended whenever provisions of the Central Land
Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 were altered ,so that the two could be treated
as identical for our purposes.
The judgment and orders of the Division Bench, under appeal
before us, purports to follow a Full Bench decision of the Mysore High
Court in Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer(!), where
it w<IS held that the relevant date for determining the market value of
the property to be acquired is the date of notification under section 18
of the City of Mysore Improvement Act of 1903. It appears that the
provisions of the last mentioned Mysore Act of 1903 largely correspond with the provisions of the Bangalore Act before us.
It has., however, to be remembered that the Act which the Full
Bench of the Mysore High Court was interpreting was enacted in 1903.
It had, therefore, to be construed with reference to the provisions of the
Acquisition Act as it stood in 1903.
The Mysore Full Bench had
observed that the Mysore Land Acquisition Act had been amended
by the Mysore Act 1 of 1927 "so as to make compensation ·payable
as on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1)
of that Act" instead of with reference to the date
of notification
under section 6 according to the unamended law. It said : "It is
significant to note that the Mysore Legislature did not make
any
corresponding amendment in the Act" (that is to say, the City of
Mysore Act of 1903).
The Bangalore Act, even though it may
correspond substantially with the provisions of the Mysore Improvement Act 3 of 1903, was enacted in 1945. Hence, references in the
Bangalore Act to the Acquisition Act, which had
been
amended
considerably between 1903 and 1945, could not have the same effect
as similar references to the Acquisition Act in the Mysore Act of
1903.
We think that the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High
Court overlooked this vital distinction.
(!) A.LR. 1972 Mysore 193.
(
\
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. H. NARAYANAIAH (Beg, J.)
I 83
The Full Bench of the Mysore High Court expressed the view
that the contention that a notification under Section 16 of the Mysore
AcJ;_ of 1903 could be equated with a notification under section 4 of
the Acquisition Act was negatived by the provisions of Section 23,
sub. s. ( 1) of the Mysore Act of 1903. It said (at p. 198) :
"Section 23 ( 1) of the Act states that upon the passing
of a resolution by the Board that an improvement scheme
under Section 14 is necessary, it would be lawful for any
person authorised by the Board to enter upon the land
carry out the several acts on the land in question as provided under section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act and the provisions of section 5 of the Acquisition Act would likewise
be applicable in respect of damage caused by any of the
acts of servants or workmen of the Board".
It, therefore, thought that what was sought to be achieved by notification under section 4 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act was done by a reso--
lution under section 14 of the Mysore Act. Taking the view that such a
resolution could only be anterior to the publication of the notification
under section 16, it equated the notification under section 16 of the
Mysore Act with a notification under section 6 of the
Acquisition
Act.
Thus, the Mysore Full Bench found in Section 23 (1) of the
Mysore Act of 1903, a justification for equating provisions of section 14 of that Act with those of section 4(1) of the Acquisition
Act.
But, we do not find either in ·section 23 of the Bangalore Act,
which deals with an entirely different subject matter, or, anywhere,
apart from section 27, additional provision (1) of the Bangalore Act,
a silnilar provision which could ~ndicate that proceedings under a
section other than those under section 16 of the Bangalore Act could
possibly correspond with those under section 4(1) of the Acquisition
Act.
And, we think that to equate .a resolution under section 14 of
the Act with a notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition
Act, on a similar reasoning, would be to miss the
very
different
purposes meant to be served by a resolution under section 14 of the
Basgalore Act and a notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act.
Such reasoning appears to us to be very far fetched.
Another reason given by the Full Bench of the Mysore
High
Court, for holding that market value should be determined as on the
date of notification under section 18 and not that
of notification
under section 16 of the City of Mysore Improvement Act
(both
these sections, correspond to section 16 and 18 of the
Bangalore
Act) was that a delay of 20 years between the two notifications
would make the acquisition unconstitutional.
We
are ·unable to
appreciate the bearing of this consideration on a decision
of the
statutory requirements as to the date on which market value is to
be determined for purposes of compensation. If a particular acquisition becomes unconstitutional due to an unreasonable mode of
exercising the statutory powers of acquisition, neither the provision
which is
so misused nor the meaning · of other provisions,
which are relevant for determining the date of market value,
is
affected.
We are constrained to observe that some of the reasons
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 19_77] 1 S.C.R.
A
given by the Full Bench of the Mysore High Court as well as
the
Division Benches of the Karnataka High Court have little connection
with the date on which the market value has to be determined according to statutory provisions.
A pure question of
interpretation
of
fairly clearly expressed Jegislative intent which should not have been
permitted to be fogged by adverting to irrelevant matters.
D
E
F
G
H
lt is true that the Bangalore Act has its own distinct purposes
and prescribed modes in which they are to be carried out.
Acquisition of land, as aJready observed, is a mere incident in the carrying
out of those purposes.
Section 26 of the Act gives: it the power to
acquire land by agreement.
Section 27 of the Act reproduced above,
enables the procedure found in the Acquisition Act to
be
utilised
except to the extent to which the procedure for compulsory acquisition in the Bangalore Act may differ from that contained
in
the
Acquisition Act.
Section 27 of the Bangalore
Act giws certain
"further provisions" indicated under four heads.
Apparently, these
are meant to displace corresponding actions under the Acquisition
Act.
We have to identify the corresponding provisions only for the
purposes of applying Section 23 (1) of the Acquisition Act.
It is evident that the first of these additional provisions enables
the Board of Trustees, by virtue of section 14, to undertake what
could have been done under the Acquisition Act only after a notification under section 4 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act.
In other words,
the deviation from the procedure laid down in the Acquisition Act
is that, whereas the Agents of the Govt. could not undertake anything provided for by section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act without a
notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, the Board of
Trustees could do those very things without any notification under.
section 4 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act.
Even if we could equate the
resolution under section 14 of the Bangalore Act with a notification
under section 4 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act, we could not dispense
with the requirements of section 23 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act which
is the only provison applicable for determining the date of the
market value.
The only result of equating a resolution under section 14 with a notification under section 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act
could be to shift the date of ascertainment of market value further
back.
But, that is not what the respondents contend for.
The second additional provision under
section
27 (2)
seems
designed, by way of abundant caution, to clarify the
meaning
of
provisions of section 18 of the Act.
Obviously, it prevents
any
construction which could enable a notification under section 18
of
the Bangalore Act to be equated with section 4(1) of the Act.
To
hold that a notification under section 18 of the Bangalore Act could
be equated with section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, in the face of
this clear provision, equating it with a notification under section 6
of the Acquisition Act, is to conntenance the obvious absurdity that
there is no difference between a notification under section 4( l) and
section 6 of the Acquisition Act.
A possible line of argument, in view of the 1st additional provision in section 27 of the Bangalore Act, could be that,
since the
'-....
I
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V, H. NARAYANAIAH (Beg, J.)
185
general procedure under the Acquisition Act applies,
a notification
wider section 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act itself shotild precede any
action under section 14 of the Act which is to be
equated
witn
section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act.
But, than has not been the
argument of any side either in the Karnataka High Court or before
·us. Had that been necessary and no notification under section 4 (1)
of the Act had taken place, the validity of the
whole
acquisition
proceedings could have been challenged, but, the
validity of
the
Acquisition proceedings is not assailed before us at all.
Such a line
of reasoning would be also shut out by the principle that. the particular and the especially provided procedure ·would exclude the more
general if we hold, as we have to having regard to Section 16 of the
Act, that the special procedure was meant to take the place of and
to serve the same object as the general.
The argument
that
an
additional compliance with section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act was
necessary despite the special procedure in section 16 of the Act, which
fulfils the same function, is also repelled by the correct vie;v taken
in M. Manicklal v. the State. of Mysore,(') by the Mysore High
Court
The real question before us is whether the market value should
A
B
c
be determined with reference to the date of notification under secD
tion 16 of the Act.
As we find that the notification under section 18
has been actually equated, by the second additional provision contained in section 27 of the Bangalore Act, with a notification under
section 6 of the Acquisition Act, so that it could not be also equated
with any notification under section 4 ( 1) of the
Acquisition
Act,
and, as we. also find that the provisions of section 16 of the Bangalore
Act and section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act show that the obvious
E
intention behind and objects achieved by a notification under
section 16 of the Act and one under section 4 ( 1) of the Acquisition
Act are identical, we think that it is most reasonable to hold that it
is not necessary at all, in such cases, to comply with section 4 ( 1) of
the Acquisition Act in addition to complying with section l 6 of
the Bangalore Act.
The general provisions of section 4 (1) of the
Acquisition Act are displaced by the special provisions of section 16
F
of the Act
Here, we may set out the provisions of section 4 of the Acquisition
Act and section 16 of the Bangalore Act to indicate the identity of
purposes and the extent of similarity of procedure.
Section 4 of the· Acquisition Act provides :
"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers
G
of officers thereupon.-( 1) Whenever it
appears to the
appropriate Government or tile Deputy Commissioner that
land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for
any public purpose, a notification stating the purpose for
which the land is needed, or likely to btl needed, and describing the land by its survey number, if any, and also by its
boundaries and its approximate area;
shall be published
H
in the official Gazette, and its Deputy Commissioner
(1) 1967 (2) M.L.J. p. 239
1414-1003SCI/76
A
B
c
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
shall cause
public
notice
of
the
substance of such
notification to be given at convenient places in the said
locality. The Deputy Commissioner may also cause a copy
of such notification to be served on the owner, or where the
owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land.
Explanation.-The expression
'convenient
places' includes, in the case of land situated in a village, the office of
the panchayat within whose jurisdiction the land lies.
(IA) The notification under sub-section (1) shall also
specify the date, (such date not being less than thirty days
from the date of publication of the notification) on or before
which, and the manner in which, objections to the proposed
acquisition may be made, under section SA.
(2) On the publication of such notification it shall be
lawfulffor any Officer, either generally or specially authorized
by such Government or by the Deputy Commissioner in this
behalf, and for his servants and workmen,-
to enter upon and survey and take levels of the land; to dig '
or bore into the sub-soil;
,
~
D
to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land
is adapted for such purpose;
to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken
and the intended line of work (if any) proposed to be made
thereon;
to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks
E
and cuttin,g _trenches; and
F
G
H
where otherwise the survey cannot be
completed and the
levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut
down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or
jungle :
Provided that no person shall enter into any building or
upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwellinghouse (unless with the consent of -the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days notice
in writing of his intention to do so.
( 3) Where the acquisition is for a company, an officer of
such company may be authorised by the appropriate Government or the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the powers
conferred by sub-section (2).
( 4) The Officer authorised under sub-section ( 2) or
sub-section (3) shall complete his investigation and submit
his report to the Deputy Commissioner within a period of
three months (or within such longer period not exeeding
six months in all as the Deputy Commissioner may allow) ,
from the date of the publication of the notification under subsection ( 1) with his remarks to the appropriate Government along with his report under sub-section (2) of section
SA".
r
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. H. NARAYANAIAH (Beg, J.)
187
Section 16 of the Bangalore Act enacts :
A
"16. Procedure on completion of schepie.-(1) Upon
the completion of an improvement scheme, the Board shall
draw up a notification stating the fact _of a scheme having
been made and the limits of the area comprised therein, and
naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the
area comprised therein and a statement specifying the land
B
which it is proposed ~o acquire and of the land in regard to
which it is proposed to recover a betterment fee may be seen
at all reasonable hours; and shall-"'.
(a) Copy of notification of scheme to be commupicated
to Mayor of the Corporation.-Communicate a copy of such
notification to the Mayor of the Corporation who shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof forward to the
Board, for transmission to the Government as
hereinafter
provided, any representation which the Corporation may think
fit to make with regard to the scheme;
(b) Publication of notification.-Cause a copy of the
said notification to be publication during three consecutive
weeks in the Mysore Gazette and posted up in some conspi-
<:i:tous part of its
own office, the Deputy Commissioner's
office, the office of the Corporation and in such other places
as the Board may consider necessary.
(2) Service of notices on owners of property to be
acquired in executing the scheme.-During the thirty days
next following the day on which such notification is published
c
D
in the Mysore Gazette the Board shall serve a IJ.Otice on
E
every person whose riame appears in the assessment list of
the Corporation or the Municipality or local body concerned
·or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to
pay the property tax or land revenue
a!lsessment on any
building or land which it is proposed to acquire in executing
1 the scheme, or in regard to which the Board proposes to re-
.cover a betterment fee, stating that the Board proposes to
F
acquire such building or land or to recover such betterment
fee for the purpose of carrying out an improvement scheme
and requiring an answer within thirty days from the date of
·service of the notice stating whether the person so served,
dissents or not to such acquisition of the building or land or
to the recovery of such betterment fee, and if the person
dissents, the reasons for such dissent.
G
(3) Notice how to be served.-Such notice shall be
1signed by, or by the order of, the Chairman and shall be
:served-
,
(a) by delivery of the same personally to the person
required to be served or if such person is absent or cannot
be found, to his agent, or if no agent can be found, then by
H
leaving the same on the land or building; or
(b) by leaving the same at the usual or last known place
,of abode or business of such person as aforesaid; or
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
( c) by registered post addressed to the usual or last
known place of abode or business of such person".
It will be set that Section 16 of the Bangalore Act provides even
more elaborately for the publication of the initial notice which is given
in section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act so that any representations
which the objectors may have to make may be considered by the
Board itself under section 1 7 of the Bangalore Act. Thus, the object
of the procedure provided by section 16 and section 17 ~eems to be to
take the place of the notification under section 4 ( 1) and the hearing
of objections under section SA of the Acquisition Act.
Under the
Bangalore Act, it is the Board itself which gives notices and considers
objections to a scheme before communicating the scheme to the Govt.
for sanction. It is true that the Board has not been specifically given
the power by the Bangalore Act to rescind the scheme.
The Bangalore Act only mentions the Board'.s power to modify the scheme, if it
considers thiO!,t ~o be necessary. After that, the Act directs the Board
to send it to the Government for sanction. Of course, the Govt. could
either sanction or reject the scheme. And, in suitable cases, the Board
could perhaps revoke its own resolution. But, we need not consider
or decide that question here. All we need observe here is that a corresponding special procedure, which we find in the provisions of section
16 of the Bangalore Act, need not necessarily be identical with thegeneral procedure, serving the same object, which we find in section
4(1) of the Acquisition Act.
We are concerned more here with the
identity of objects and functions of provisions rather than with that
of precise steps prescribed or words used in them.
The next stage is found in section 18 which lays down :
"18. On receipt of sanction, declaration to be published
giving particulars of land to be acquired.-
( 1) (a) On receipt of the sanction of the Government, the
Chairman shall forward a declaration for notification under
the signature of a Secretary to the Government, stating the
fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be
acquired by the Board for the purposes of the scheme is
required for a public purpose.
(b) The declaration shall be published in the Mysore
Gazette and shall state the limits within which the land
proposed to be acquired is situate, the purpose for which it
is needed, its approximate area and the place where a plan
of the land may be inspected.
,
( c) And upon such publication Board to proceed
to
execute the scheme.-The said declaration shall be concluc.
sive evidence that•the land is needed for a public purpose,
and the Board shall, upon the publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme.
(2) Board to have power to alter any part of ·the
Scheme.-(a) If at any time! it appears to the Board that
an improvement can be made in any part of the sch~me, the
Board may alter the scheme for the purpose of makmg such
\
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. H. NARAYANAIAH (Beg, J.)
189
improvement, and shall, subject to the provisions contained
in the next two clauses of this sub-section forthwith proceed
to execute the scheme as altered.
(b) If the estimated cost of executing the scheme as
.ailtered exceeds, by a greater sum than five per cent the estimated cost of executing the scheme
as
sanctioned,
the
Board shall not, without the
previous
sanction . of
the
·Government, proceed to execute the scheme as altered.
( c) If the scheme as altered involves
the
acquisition
•otherwise than by agreement, of any land other than that
specified in the schedule accompanying the scheme under
section 17(2)(e), the provisions of sections 16 and 17 and
of sub-section, (1) shall apply to the part of the scheme
so altered, in the same manner as if such altered part were
the scheme".
It will be seen that, but for the 1st additional provision, contained in section 27 of the Bangalore Act, perhaps it could be urged
that the powers contained in section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act and
the right to damages, contained in section 5 of the Acquisition Act,
do not apply at all to acquisition under the Act.
Hence, this additional provision became necessary.
We are not called upon to determine here at what stage• powers under section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act could or should reasonably be exercis<'.d in a
case falling
under the provisions of the Bangalore Act.
Nevertheless, we
may
mention that it would seem more reasonable to exercise the powers
provided for by section 27 ( 1) of the Bangalore Act (i.e. powers in
section 4 (2) of the Acquisition Act) only after a notification under
section 16 of this Act.
An examination of the provisions of the Bangalore Act and of
acq1!isition proceedings under the Acquisition Act, contemplated by
it, would reveal that, whereas the procedure from
the notification
under section 4 to the notification under section 6 of the Acquisition
Act gives place to the procedure provided by sections 14 to 18 of the
Bangalore Act, the stage at which compensation is to be determined
is to be regulated entirely by the general provisions of section 23 ( 1)
of the Acquisition Act because there is no special or separate provision in the Bangalore Act to regulate the compensation payable.
It
is true that section 23 is not specifically mentioned in the Bangalore
Act.
But, the obviou~ purposes of the opening words of section 27
of the Bangalore Act seems to us to be that award of compensation,
which is a necessary part of any law providing for acquisition, must be
governed by section 23 of the Acquisition Act.
The last mentioned
section enacts :
"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.-( I) Jn determining the amount of compensation to
be awarded for .land acquired under this Act,
the Court
shall take into considerationA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
first, the market value, of the land at the date of the publiB
c
D
E
F
G
H
cation of the notification under section 4, subsection ( 1 ) ;
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested,
by reason of the taking of any standing crops or
trees which may be on the land at the time of the
Deputy Commissioner's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person
interested, at the. time of the Deputy Commissioner's
taking possession of the land, by reason of severing
such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Deputy Commissioner's
taking possession of the land, by reason
of
the
acquisition injuriously affecting his other property,
movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his
earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by
the Deputy Commissioner, the person interested
is compelled to change hie residence or
place of
business, the reasonal:Jle expenses (if any), incidental to such change; and
sixthiy, the damage (if any), bona fide
resulting from
diminution of the profits of the land between
the
time of the publication of the declaration under
section 6 and the time of the Deputy Commissioner's
taking possession of the land.
(2) In addition to the market-value of the
land,,
as
above provided, the Court shall in every case awiμ-d a sum
of fifteen per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition".
Non-specification of a different principle or procedure in the Act,
governing award of compensation under the Bangalore Act, far from
indicating, as learned Judges of the High Court.