PETITIONER:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENTTRUST BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P. GOVINDAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/09/1976
BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
SHINGAL, P.N.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 2517 1977 SCR (1) 549
1976 SCC (4) 697
ACT
City of Mysore Improvemet Act, 1903, Ss. 16, 18 and
23(1)--Relevant date for determining market value for pur-
poses of compensatton, what is.
HEADNOTE
Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act originally
provided that the date for Section 23 (1) of the market
value for purpose of compensation is the date of the
notification under s. 6. In 1927, s. 23(1) was amended
making the date of s. 4(1) notification as the relevant
date.
With respect to certain acquisitions under the City of
Mysore Improvement Act, 1903. (Mysore Act) the notifica-
tion under s. 16 of the Act was published in May 1965 and
the notification under s. 18, which corresponds to s. 6 of
the Acquisition Act, was published some, time later. On the
question of the date for the determination of market value
for purposes of compensation under the provisions of s.
23(1), Acquisition Act, the High Court followed the Full
Bench decision of that court in Venkatamma v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer (AIR 1972 Mysore 193) and held that the
date of s. 18-notification is the relevant date, on the
ground that s. 23(1), Acquisition Act, as it stood in 1903
should be applied, since its amendment in 1927, has not
been made specially applicable to acquisitions after that
date.
Allowing the appeal to this Court and remanding the case
to the High Court for determination of the market value as
on the date of s. 16-notification.
HELD: (1) Section 23, Mysore Act, applied the provisions
of the Acquisition Act to acquisitions under the Mysore Act,
except to the extent of any express deviation by the Mysore
Act from the general procedure in the Acquisition Act. It
is a fair interpretation of s. 23, Mysore Act, to hold that
it means that, whatever may be procedure with regard to
matters regulating compensation under the Acquisition Act,
at the time of acquisition proceedings, will apply to acqui-
sitions under the Mysore Act. The procedure, contained in
the Acquisation Act for the time being need not be expressly
applied once again after each amendment of the Acquisition
Act, and such procedure in the Acquisition Act would apply
if it is capable of application, since no one has a vested
right in a particular procedure. [552 A-F]
Therefore: s. 23(1) of the Acquisition Act, which lays
down the procedure for awarding compensation, has to be
followed as it exists at the time of requisition proceed-
ings. [552H--553A]
(2) the 927-amendment of s. 23(1), Acquisition Act,
meant a legally valid substitution of the notification
under s. 4(1) for the one under s. 6 of the Acquisition
Act, that is, an effective repeal and replacement. In such
a situation, according to s. 6, Mysore General Clauses Act,
only proceedings commenced before the repeat would be
governed by the unamended procedure. [552 F-G]
(3) The date of notification under s. 4(1) of the
Acquisition Act would thus be the relevant date, for
determining market value. Although the procedure laid
down in s. 16, Mysore Act, is more elaborate than the proce-
dure under s. 4(1), Acquisition Act, the purpose of s. 16,
Mysore Act is the same as that of s. 4(1) Acquisition Act.
Therefore, the date of s 16 notification would be the rele-
vant date. [553 B-F]
550
Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board
v.H. Narayanaiah etc., etc. [1977] 1 S.C.R. 178, followed.
Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1972
Mysore 193) -overruled.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2539 of 1972.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-3-1972 of the
Mysore High Court in Misc. First Appeal No. 234/70)
H.S. Parihar for 1. N. Shroff, for the Appellant.
K.R. Nagaraja and P.N. Puri for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J. The judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore
High Court under appeal before us after certification of the
case as fit for an appeal to us, follows the decision of a
Full Bench of that Court in Venkatamma v. Special Land
Acquisition officer. (1) The FuII Bench had held that the
date for the determination of compensation under the provi-
sions of section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which
was to. be applied to acquisitions under the City of Mysore
Improvement Act 3 of 1903 (hereinafter referred to as ’the
Mysore Act’), was the date of notification under section 18
of the Act corresponding to section 6 of the Acquisition
Act.
Recently, we have had to deal with a case in which the
provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945,
corresponding substantially with those of the Act now before
us, were interpreted by us. The provisions of Sections 14,
16 and 18 of the Mysore Act of 1903, as well as the Banga-
lore Act of 1945 are identical. And, the provisions of
section 23 of the Mysore Act are identical with those Sec-
tion 27 of the Bangalore Act. Therefore, a Division Bench
of the Karnataka High Court considered itself bound by the
Full Bench decision of the Mysore High Court (subsequentiy
the Karnataka High Court) on the provisions of the Mysore
Act of 1903 even in interpreting the Bangalore Act of 1945.
But, this Court held, in the Land Acquisition Officer, City
Improvement Trust Board v.H. Narayanaiah etc. etc.,(2) that
the Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court
holding that the market value, for the purposes of compensa-
tion, must be determined with reference to the date of
notification under section 18 of the Bangalore Act, was
erroneous. It, therefore, allowed the appeals from the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
which had purported to follow the Full Bench decision of the
Mysore Act of 1903.
The main argument in the appeal before us is that this
Court had observed in Narayanaiah’s case (supra) that the
Full Bench decision related to an interpretation of provi-
sions of an Act as it stood in
(1) A.I.R. 1972 Mysore 193.
(2) [1977] 1 S.C.R. 178.
551
1903, when the date of market value, to be determined for
purposes of compensation, was the date of notification under
section 6 of the Acquisition Act. That date was subse-
quently changed by the Mysore Act 1 of 1927 to that of
publication and notification under Section 4(1) of the
Acquisition Act. It is true that this Court did observe
that this difference was vital. In doing so, it had ac-
cepted the. argument put forward on behalf of the Land
Acquisition Officer. But, it had not decided what was the
real meaning of provisions of Section 23 of the Mysore Act
which correspond with section 27 of the Bangalore Act.
Section 23 of the Mysore Act now before us reads as follows:
"23. 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 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 spe-
cially authorised by the Board in this behalf and
for his servants and workmen, to do all such acts
on or in respect of land in that locality as it
would be lawful for an officer duly authorised by
Government to act under section 4(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, and for his servants and workmen,
to do thereunder, and the provision contained in
section 5 of the said Act shall likewise be ap-
plicable 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 Land Acquisi-
tion Act.
(3) For the purposes of section 50(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, the Board shall be deemed to
be local authority concerned.
(4) After the land vests in the Government
under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the
Deputy Commissioner 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
vest in the Board".
The reasoning of the Full Bench of the. Mysore High
Court, which did not appeal to this Court in Narayanaiah’s
case (supra), was that, since a declaration under section 18
of the Act was equated with section 6 of the Acquisition
Act, proceedings under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act
could only be equated with the stage of a resolution
552
under section 14(1) of the Act which was anterior to the
declaration under section 18 of the Mysore Act. section 16
of the Act is also anterior to Section 18. This Court
found that, although the procedure laid down in section 16
of the Bangalore Act, which corresponds exactly with section
16 of the Mysore Act now before us, is more elaborate than
the procedure under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act,
yet, the purpose of section 16 of the Bangalore Act was the
same as that of section 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act, we
think that thisreasoning applies equally to the provisions
of the Mysore Act.
It is true that it can be more plausibly argued, with
regard to the provisions of Mysore Act of 1903, that the
market value for acquisition under this Act should be deter-
mined with reference to the Acquisition Act as it stood in
1903. After carefully considering this point of view, we
think that such a departure from the generally accepted
procedure which regulates acquisition and compensation for
it under similar Acts in the State of Mysore as well as
under Land Acquisition Act today has to be justified by
something more explicit, express and substantial than the
mere date of enactment of the Mysore Act. If Section 23(1)
of the Acquisition Act lays down, as we think it does, the
only procedure for award of compensation, it has to be
followed as it exist at the time of acquisition proceedings.
No one has a vested right in a particular procedure. It
is a fair interpretation of section 23 of the Mysore Act of
1903 to hold that it means that, whatever may be the proce-
dure there, with regard to matters regulating compensation
under the Acquisition Act,. at the time of acquisition
proceedings, will apply to acquisition under the Mysore Act.
If the procedure that the market value should be deter-
mined with reference to section 6 of the Acquisition Act had
been replaced, by an amendment of 1927. by the provision
that the relevant date will be the date of notification
under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, we will really
have to determine what is the equivalent in the Mysore Act
of proceedings under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act.
The provision relating to determination of compensation with
reference to Section 6 having disappeared was no longer
available to be applied at all on the date of the acquisi-
tion with which we are now concerned. Hence. to argue that
the equivalent of section 6 notification trader the Acquisi-
tion Act should govern even proceedings commenced after the
amendment would be to apply what had ceased to exist long
before the proceeding commenced. The amendment of section
23(1) of the Acquisition Act meant a legally valid substitu-
tion of the notification under section 4(1) for the one
under section 6 of the Acquisition Act. This implied an
effective repeal and replacement. In such a situa-
tion, according to section 6 of the Mysore General
Clauses Act, only proceedings commenced before the repeal
would be governed by the unamended procedure. We think
that the language of section 23 of the Mysore Act applies
the provisions of the Acquisition Act to acquisitions under
the Mysore Act, except to the extent of express deviation by
the Mysore Act from the general procedure in the Acquisition
Act as amended from time to time. The procedure contained
in the Acquisition Act, for the time being, did
553
need to be expressly applied once again after each amendment
of the Acquisition Act, as the Mysore High Court seems to
have opined. It was enough to lay, down, as section 23 of
the Mysore Act does, that the general procedure found in the
Acquisition Act will apply except to the extent it was
inapplicable. This means that amendments of the procedure
in the Acquisition Act will apply if it is capable of appli-
cation.
In the case before us, the preliminary notification
under section 16 of the Mysore Act of 1903 was published on
27th May, 1965. This we equate with notification under
section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act for reasons we have
already given in Narayanaiah’s case (supra). At that time,
there was no date other than the date of the notification
under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act prescribed for
ascertainment of the market value, as a matter of correct
procedure for determining compensation. The procedure under
the unamended Act may have had relevance for acquisition
proceedings begun before the amendment of the Acquisition
Act in 1927 when it really existed. But, we think that it
is a fair interpretation of the provisions of Section 23 of
the Mysore Act to hold that compensation for acquisitions
will be general provisions of the Acquisition Act as they
exist on the date of a particular acquisition proceeding
except to the extent to which a different procedure is
expressly laid down in the Mysore Act. On the view we take,
the market value of the property acquired had to be deter-
mined with reference to the date of notification under
Section 16 of the Mysore Act.
Consequently, we set aside the judgment and order of the
Mysore High Court. We remand the case to the High Court
for determination of the market value and disposal of the
case in accordance with the law as declared by us. The
parties will bear their own costs throughout.
V.P.S. Appeal allowed.
554