http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENTTRUST BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: P. GOVINDAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/09/1976

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH RAY, A.N. (CJ) SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2517            1977 SCR  (1) 549  1976 SCC  (4) 697  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1989 SC 516  (49)

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       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 this- reasoning 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       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