http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENTTRUST BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: H. NARAYANAIAH ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1976

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH RAY, A.N. (CJ) SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2403            1977 SCR  (1) 178  1976 SCC  (4)   9  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1976 SC2517  (2,3,5,8)

ACT:             Land  acquisition--City  of Bangalore  Improvement  Act,         1945,  ss. 16  18 and 27--Notification under ss. 16. and  18         on  different dates--Date for determining market  value  for         awarding compensation for acquisition of land.             Evidence Act (1 of 1872) s. 43 and Code of Civil  Proce-         dure  (ACt 5 of 1908) O. 41, 27--Admission of  Judgments  in         land acquisition proceedings  as  additional  evidence.

HEADNOTE:              The  City of Bangalore Improvement Act,  1945,  is  con-         cerned  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  acquisi-         tion of land 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 under 5. 4(1),  Mysore         Land  Acquisition. Act. 1894, and for hearing of  objections         as  under s. 5A, of that Act.  Section 18 of  the  Bangalore         Act  provides  for  the publication in the  Gazette  of  the         declaretion that the land is acquired for a public; purpose.         Section  27  provides that acquisitions  otherwise  than  by         agreement,  shall  be  regulated by the  provisions  of  the         Acquisition  Act  in so far as they are  applicable  and  by         certain  further  provisions in the section.  Section  27(1)         provides that upon the passing of a resolution by the  Board         that  an  improvement  scheme under s. 14  is  necessary  in         respect of any locality, it shall be lawful for any  person,         authorised  by the Board to do all such acts in  respect  of         the  land as it would be lawful for an officer  duly  autho-         rised  by  the Government under s. 4(2) of  the  Acquisition         Act;  and  under s. 27(2) the publication Of  a  declaration         under  s.  18  shall be deemed to be the  publication  of  a         declaration under s. 6, Acquisition Act             In  the present case, the notifications under s.  16  of         the Bangalore Act were issued in 1960 and the  notifications

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

       under  s. 18 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 date.  The High. Court held that  decision  of         Full  Bench of the High Court in Venkatamma v. Special  Land         Acquisition Officer (AIR 1972 Mysore 193) covered the  ques-         tion:  and it also relied on another decision of the  Court,         determining compensation with respect of the acquisition  of         certain other lands, as relevant 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 ground that s. 23(1) of  the  Acquisition         Act  which  provides that the determination  of  the  market         value  should  be  as on the date of the  publication  of  a         notification  under s. 41(1), would not apply, because,  (a)         no. principle o.r procedure governing award of  compensation         is specified in the Bangalore Act, (b) the words "so far  as         applicable", used in s. 27, are equivalent to "in so far  as         they  are  specifically mentioned"; and s. 23(1) is  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 late.r 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         179         s.  16  of  the Bangalore Act,  which  corresponds  to.  the         notification  under s. 4(1 ) of the Acquisition  Act,  after         affording opportunities to the parties whether the  judgment         sought  to  be offered as additional evidence  could  be  so         admitted shall be decided. [193 E-F]              (1)(a)  The Full Bench of the High Court, while  inter-         preting  the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903,  observed         that  the Acquisition Act had been amended in 1927 so as  to         make compensation payable as on the date of the notification         under  s. 4(1) of that Act instead of the date of  notifica-         tion under s. 6 according to the unamended law and but that,         in  the  Mysore Act, there was no  corresponding  amendment.         Therefore,  the Mysore Act had to  be construed with  refer-         ence  to  the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act  as  it         stood in 1903. [182 F-G]              But,  the  Bangalore Act, even though  its  corresponds         substantially with the provisions 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 1945. [182 H]           (b)  The Full Bench also held that if there was long delay         between the two notifications, the acquisition itself  would         be  unconstitutional, and the.re.fore the date of  notifica-         tion  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.  of 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  irrele-         vant  unless  they fall under some other provisions  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

       Evidence Act.  In the present case, the earlier judgment  of         the High Court cannot operate as resjudicata because  it  is         not  between the same parties.   Such judgments are also not         judgments  in rem.  However, in Khaja Fizuddin v.  State  of         Andhra Pradesh (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 showing that the earlier judgment related         to dissimilar land.  The High Court also did not comply with         the  provisions of 0.41 r. 27, C.P.C. before  admitting  the         earlier judgment as additional evidence.  It had recorded no         ’reasons to show that it had considered the requirements or’         the rule and why it found the admission of such evidence  to         be necessary.         [191 G-H, 192 B-H 193 A-B]             Special  Land  Acquisition Officer, Bombay  v.  Lakhamsi         Ghelabhai, AIR 1960 Bom. 78, referred to.         (3)(a) Section 27 of the Bangalore Act enables the procedure         in the Acquisition Act to be utilised except tel the  extent         to which the procedure in the bangalore Act may differ  from         that in the Acquisition act. These difference  s. 27(2)  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 notifica-         tion 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 Acquisition Act is’  not  specifically         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  Banga-         lore  Act,  is that the award of compensation,  which  is  a         necessary part  of any law providing for acquisition must be         governed by s. 23 of the Acquisition Act, which is the  only         provision  applicable; for determining the date   of  market         value.[189 D-G]         (b)  The  words "so far as they are  applicable"  cannot  be         equated  to in so far as they are  specifically  mentioned."         The  words are used to exclude only those provisions of  the         acquisition Act which become inapplicable, because         180         of  the special procedure prescribe.d 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 expressly  or         by  necessary implication excluded must be applied. [190  H,         191 A-B]             (c)  Equity supplements but does not supplant law.   If,         in the face of the provision that the notification under  s.         18, Bangalore Act is equated with a notification under s.  6         of  the. Acquisition Act for the purpose of determining  the         market value for awarding compensation, some  transcendental         principle of’ equity is applied, then, it would be supplant-         ing  the  law laid down in s. 27 of the Bangalore  Act  read         with  s. 23 of the Acquisition Act. It would also be  absurd         to hold that a notification under s.18, Bangalore Act, could         be  equated  with a notification under 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, Bangalore Act, and one under s. 4,         Acquisition  Act are identical.  In the Full Bench  decision         of the High Court, it was held. relying 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

       view  of the provisions of r. 27 of the Bangalore  Act,  the         only  result  of  equating  a resolution under s. 14 of  the         Bangalore  Act  with  a notification under s.  4(1)  of  the         Acquisition  Act would be to shift the date of  ascertaining         of market value still further back which is not the  conten-         tion of the respondents. [191 A, F]             OBITER:  An  additional compliance with s. 4(1)  of  the         Acquisition   Act  is not necessary in view of  the  special         procedure unders. 16 of the Bangalore Act: and, it would  be         reasonable  for the authorities to exercise the powers  pro-         vided for by s. 27(1) of the Bangalore Act, corresponding to         those  in  s. 4(2) of the Acquisition Act,  only  after  the         notification under s. 16 of the Bangalore Act. [185 B.C]         M.  Manicklal  v. The State of Mysore 1967  (2)  M.L.J.  239         approved.

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 644-650/74.             (Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  21-6-1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Misc.  First         Appeal Nos. 77, 444-450/70 respectively).              K.  Sen, V.M. Tarkunde, H.B. Datar and R.B.  Datar  for         the appellant.             S.  Rangaraj, M. Qamaruddin, P.N. Purl, S.K.  Mehta  for         Mr. K.R. Naggrain, for respondent in CA. No. 644/74.             A.R. Somnath Iyer,  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  of         the Karnataka High Court.  The common and principal question         of law which arises is: Does the City of Bangalore  Improve-         ment Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’ or ’the         Bangalore Act’), applying the provisions of the Land  Acqui-         sition  Act,  1894  (Central Act 1  of  1894).  (hereinafter         referred  to as ’the Acquisition Act’), to  acquisitions  of         land in Bangalore require the determination of market value,         for purposes of awarding compensation, on a date correspond-         ing to the date of notifi-         181         cation under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act or to the date         corresponding to that of the notification under Section 6 of         the Acquisition Act             The  facts of the cases are not really material for  the         determination  of the question of law stated above.   A  few         facts  relating to the lands acquired may, however, be  men-         tioned.  They have a bearing  on  a connected question dealt         with at the end of this judgment.             The  seven  appeals by special leave arise out  of  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 18 of the  Bangalore         Act,  equated  by Section 27(2) of the  Bangalore  Act  with         notifications  under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act,  were         made  in 1967.  All the lands involved in these appeals  are         situated in Birmamangala 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         Nagar Extension’.             The  Bangalore  Act, as its preamble states,  is  really         concerned with the "improvement and future expansion of  the         City  of  Bangalore and for the appointment of  a  Board  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

       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  acqui-         sitions. But, Section 27 of the Bangalore Act lays down:                        "27. Provisions applicable by the acquisition                  of land otherwise than by agreement.--The  acquisi-                  tion  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  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                  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 o.f 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.                  182                        (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)  After the land vests in  the  Government                  under  section  16 of the Mysore  Land  Acquisition                  Act,  1894  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  acquisi-                  tion, 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  iden-                  tical 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  Venka-                  tamrna  v.  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer(1),                  where it was held that the relevant date for deter-                  mining  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  men-                  tioned  Mysore Act of 1903 largely correspond  with                  the provisions of the Bangalore Act before us.                      It has, however, to be remembered that the  Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

                which  the  Full Bench of the Mysore High Court was                  interpreting  was. enacted in 1903. It had,  there-                  fore, to be construed with reference to the  provi-                  sions  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  Legis-                  lature  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 Acqui-                  sition  Act  in the Mysore Act of 1903.   We  think                  that  the  Division Bench of the   Karnataka   High                  Court overlooked this vital distinction.                  (1) A.I.R. 1972 Mysore 193.                  183                      The  Full  Bench of the Mysore High  Court  ex-                  pressed the view that the contention that a notifi-                  cation  under Section 16 of the Mysore Act 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 provid         ed  under  section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act and  the  pro         visions  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 resolution 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  sec-         tion 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,  any-         where,  apart from section 27, additional provision  (1)  of         the Bangalore Act, a similar provision which could ;indicate         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  Acquisi-         tion 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 Bangalore Act and a  notification  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

       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  deter-         mined  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  appreci-         ate 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         184         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  ques-         tion of  interpretation  of fairly clearly expressed  legis-         lative  intent  which should not have been permitted  to  be         fogged by adverting to irrelevant matters.         It  is  true  that the Bangalore Act has  its  own  distinct         purposes  and prescribed modes in which they are to be  car-         ried  out.  Acquisition of land, as already observed,  is  a         mere  incident in the carrying out of those purposes.   Sec-         tion  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  con-         tained   in  the Acquisition Act.  Section 27 of the  Banga-         lore   Act   gives  certain "further  provisions"  indicated         under  four heads.  Apparently. these are  meant   to   dis-         place  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  provi-         sions  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  any-         thing  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  with-         out  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 provision 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 as certainment of market value farther 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   mean-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

       ing of  provisions of section 18 of the Act,  Obviously,  it         prevents  any   construction which could enable a  notifica-         tion  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  countenance  the         obvious  absurdity  that there is no  difference  between  a         notification under section 4(1) and section 6 of the  Acqui-         sition Act.              A  possible line of argument, in view of the 1st  addi-         tional  provision in section 27 of the Bangalore Act,  could         be that,  since the         185         general  procedure  under the Acquisition  Act  applies,   a         notification  under  section  4(1) of  the  Acquisition  Act         itself should precede any action under section 14 of the Act         which  is to be  equated  with section 4(2) of the  Acquisi-         tion Act.  But, that 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   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  Acquisi-         tion  Act  was necessary despite the  special  procedure  in         section  16 of the Act, which fulfils the same function,  is         also  repelled by the correct view taken in M. Manicklal  v.         the   State   of   Mysore   (1)    by   the   Mysore    High         court.         The  real  question before us is whether  the  market  value         should be determined with reference to the date of notifica-         tion  under  section  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 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 16         of  the  Bangalore Act.  The general provisions  of  section         4(1)  of  the Acquisition Act are displaced by  the  special         provisions of section 16 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 indi-         cate  the identity of purposes and the extent of  similarity         of procedure.         Section A of the Acquisition Act provides:                        "4.  Publication of preliminary  notification                  and powers of officers there upon.--(1) Whenever it                  appears to the appropriate Government or the Deputy                  Commissioner that land in any locality is needed or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

                is  likely to be needed for any public  purpose,  a                  notification stating the purpose for which the land                  is  needed, or likely to be needed, and  describing                  the land by its survey number, if any, and also  by                  its boundaries and its approximate area;  shall  be                  published in the  official  Gazette,      and   its                  Deputy  Commissioner                  (1) 1967 (2) M.L.J.p.239                  1414--1003SCI/76                  186                  shall  cause  public  notice   of   the   substance                  of  such notification  to  be given  at  convenient                  places  in the said locality.  The  Deputy  Commis-                  sioner  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  vil-                  lage,  the  office of the  panchayat  within  whose                  jurisdiction the land lies.                       (1A)  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  acqui-                  sition  may be made, under section 5A.                  (2) On the publication of such notification it shah                  be  lawful  for any Officer,  either  generally  or                  specially  authorized by such Government or by  the                  Deputy  Commissioner  in this behalf, and  for  his                  servants  and workmento enter upon and  survey  and                  take  levels of the land; to dig or bore  into  the                  sub-soil;                  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 and cutting trenches; and                  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 dwelling house (unless with the  con-                  sent  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 investiga-                  tion  and submit his report to the  Deputy  Commis-                  sioner  within a period of three months (or  within                  such longer period not exceeding 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 5A".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

                187                  Section 16 of the Bangalore Act enacts:                            "16.    Procedure   on   completion    of                  scheme.--(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 which it is proposed to 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                  communicated to May  or of the Corporation-Communi-                  cate  a copy of such notification to the  Mayor  of                  the Corporation who shall, with in 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 conspicuous 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 in the Mysore Gazette the                  Board  shall serve a notice on every  person  whose                  name appears in the assessment list of the Corpora-                  tion 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                  assessment  on  any building or land  which  it  is                  proposed to acquire in executing the scheme, or  in                  regard  to  which the Board proposes to  recover  a                  betterment fee, stating that the Board proposes to                  acquire  such building or land or to  recover  such                  bettermentfee  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.                  (3) Notice how to be served.--Such notice shall  be                  signed  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 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 afore-                  said; or                  188                       (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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

                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 representa-                  tions  which the objectors may have to make may  be                  considered by the Board itself under section 17  of                  the  Bangalore  Act.  Thus, the object      of  the                  procedure  provided  by section 16 and  section  17                  seems  to be to take the place of the  notification                  under  section 4(1) and the hearing  of  objections                  under section 5A 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                  that to be necessary.  After that, the Act  directs                  the  Board to send it to the Government  for  sanc-                  tion. 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  corre-                  sponding  special procedure, which we find  in  the                  provisions of section 16 of the Bangalore Act, need                  not  necessarily  be  identical  with  the  general                  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  Govern-                  ment,. 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  declara-                  tion shall be conclusive 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 scheme, the Board may alter the  scheme                  for the purpose of making such                  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

                altered.                        (b)  If the estimated cost of  executing  the                  scheme  as altered 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  Govern-                  ment, 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 an       sub-sec-                  tion (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  provi-         sion, 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 fight to damages,  con-         tained 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. exercised         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 acquisition 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  sec-         tion  23  (1)  of the Acquisition Act because  there  is  no         special or separate provision in the Bangalore Act to  regu-         late  the compensation payable.  It is true that section  23         is  not specifically mentioned in the Bangalore  Act.   But,         the  obvious purposes of the opening words of section 27  of         the Bangalore Act seems to us to be that award of  compensa-         tion,  which  is a necessary part of any law  providing  for         acquisition, must be governed by section 23 of the  Acquisi-         tion Act.  The last mentioned section enacts:                        "23. Matters to be considered in  determining                  compensation.--(1)  In determining the.  amount  of                  compensation to be awarded for land acquired  under                  this    Act,    the    Court   shah    take    into                  consideration--                  190                    first, the market value, of the land at the  date                  of  the  publication 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  Com-                  missioner’s  taking  possession  of  the  land,  by                  reason of severing such land from his other land;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

                  fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained. by  the                  person  interested, at the time of the Deputy  Com-                  missioner’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  reasonable  expenses  (if                  any), incidental to such change; and                    sixthly, the damage (if any), bona  fide  result-                  ing   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  award  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 Banga-         lore Act, far from indicating, as learned Judges of the High         Court erroneously opined, that section 23(1) of the Acquisi-         tion was not applicable here at all, was one of the  strong-         est arguments for holding that it is covered by the  general         provisions  applied by section 27 of the Bangalore  Act.  An         acquisition  proceeding without providing for award of  com-         pensation  on some principle is unthinkable.  Such a  situa-         tion  would  have invited an attack on the validity  of  the         acquisition  itself.   But,  as we  have  already  observed,         there is n‘ such challenge here.             There was some argument on the meaning of the words  "so         far  as  they  are applicable", used in section  27  of  the         Bangalore   Act. These words cannot be changed into: "in  so         far as they are         191         specifically mentioned" with regard to the procedure in  the         Acquisition Act.  On the other hand, the obvious  intention,         in  using these words, was to exclude only those  provisions         of the Acquisition Act which become inapplicable because  of         any  special   procedure  prescribed by  the  Bangalore  Act         (e.g. section 16)corresponding with that found in the Acqui-         sition  Act  (e.g. section 4(1).  These  words bring  in  or         make  applicable,  so far as this is  reasonably   possible,         general provisions such as section 23(1) of the  Acquisition         Act.  They  cannot be reasonably construed  to  exclude  the         application  of  any general provisions of  the  Acquisition         Act.  They amount to laying down the principle that what  is         not  either  expressly, or, by.  a  necessary  implication,,         excluded  must be applied.  It  is  surprising to find  mis-         construction  of what did not appear to us to be  reasonably         open to more than one interpretation.             Learned Counsel for the respondents, rather desparately,         attempted to argue that, as there was no procedure or  prin-         ciple  laid  down at all for award of  compensation  in  the         Bangalore Act, we  should invoke the aid of Equity and  hold         that  the market value should  be determined with  reference         to the date of notification under section 18 of the Act.  We         do not think that such an argument could be advanced at  all         in the face of the provisions of section 27(2) which clearly         equate a notification under section 18 of the Bangalore  Act         with  the  notification under section 6 of  the  Acquisition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

       Act.   We know the maxim that "equity follows the law".   We         have not heard  of  the proposition that some transcendental         Equity  should be so used as to defeat or amend the’ law  as         it  stands.   Maitland  said long ago that  equity  came  to         supplement  and not to supplant the law.  We think that,  if         we were to aquate a notification under section 18 with   the         notification  under  section 6 of the Act  for  purposes  of         determining  the  market value, which is to be  awarded,  we         would  be doing nothing short-of supplanting at  least  ’the         law as found clearly laid  own  in section 27 of the  Banga-         lore  Act read with section 23 of the Acquisition  Act.   We         think  that the Division Bench of’ the Karnataka High  Court         had  seriously  misdirected itself in not giving  effect  to         obvious  meanings of the plain words used in statutes  under         consideration.             Another  contention which found favour in the  Karnataka         High  Court  was that a judgment filed  by  the  respondents         claimants   m Civil Appeals Nos. 644-650 of 1974, when  they         appealed   to  the Karnataka High Court against the’  orders         passed  by a Civil Judge of Bangalore, on a  reference  made         under  the Acquisition Act, could be accepted as  additional         evidence  under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. on the ground  that         it. was relevant, evidence for  the  purpose  of determining         compensation  of  lands  which were the  subject  matter  of         appeals before the High Court.  The reasons given for admit-         ting, at the appellate stage, a judgment of the High  Court,         which  had   not been filed before the  Trial  Court,  were:         firstly,  that  it  was  not available when the  proceedings         were  pending in the Trial Court; and secondly,  that  lands         dealt  with by the judgment were adjacent to the  lands  the         value of which needed determination, and that both sets of         192         lands were acquired at different stages of what is known  as         the  "layout scheme within the limits of Bhinnamangala  vil-         lage’.   The  High Court overruled the  objection  that  the         judgment  admitted  as  additional evidence  was  not  final         inasmuch as an appeal against it was pending in this  Court.         We  find that the High Court did not consider it,  for  some         reason,  necessary to refer to the provisions of the  Indian         Evidence  Act which regulate the admissibility of  all  evi-         dence  including judgments.  There could be no  question  of         res judicata in such a case.  The  previous judgment was not         between the  same  parties.  Furthermore,  the appellant was         not  given  any  opportunity of showing  that  the  judgment         related  to land which was at some distance from  the  lands         whose value was to be determined or that its site value was,         for  some reason, higher.  Even the time at which the  value         of  the  other   land  was determined was not  shown  to  be         identical.   Such judgments are not judgments in  rem.  They         are  judgments  in  personam.  The general provision of  law         governing admissibility of all judgments,  whether they  are         judgments  in rem or judgments in personam operating as  res         judicata, is section 43 of the  Evidence  Act  which   reads         as follows:                        "43.  Judgments,  orders  or  decrees,  other                  than   those mentioned in Sections 40, 41  and  42,                  are irrelevant, unless the existence of such  judg-                  ment,  order or decree, is a fact in issue,  or  is                  relevant under some other provision of  this Act".             It  is  apparent that section 43 enacts  that  judgments         other than those falling under sections 40 to. 42 are irrel-         evant  unless  they fall under some other provision  of  the         Evidence Act; and, even if they do fall under any such other         provision,  all  that is relevant, under section 43  of  the         Evidence Act, is "the existence" of such judgment, order, or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

       decree provided it "is a fact in issue, or is relevant under         some other provision of this Act".  An obvious instance   of         such other provision is a judgment  falling  under   section         13  of  the Evidence Act.  The illustration to section 13 of         the  Evidence Act indicates the kind of facts on  which  the         existence of judgments may be relevant.             In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v.  Lakhamsi         Ghelabhai,(1)  Shelat  J,  held  that  judgments  not  inter         partes, relating to land acquired are not admissible  merely         because the land dealt with n the judgment was situated near         the  land  of which the value is to be determined.   It  was         held  there  that such judgments would  fall  neither  under         section 11 nor under section 13 of the Evidence Act.   Ques-         tions relating to value of particular pieces of land  depend         upon  the  evidence in the particular case  in  which  those         facts are proved.  They embody findings or opinions relating         to facts in issue and investigated in different cases.   The         existence  of  a judgment would not prove he value  of  some         piece of land not dealt within at all in the judgment admit-         ted in evidence.  Even slight differences in situation can,         (1) A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 78.         193         sometimes,  cause considerable differences in value.  We  do         not think it necessary to take so restrictive a view of  the         provisions of Sections 11 anti 13 of the Evidence Act as  to         exclude  such judgments altogether from evidence  even  when         good  grounds  are made out for their admission.   In  Khaja         Fizuddin  v.  State of Andhra Pradesh,(1) a bench  of  three         Judges of this Court held such judgments  to  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.             The  Karnataka  High Court had, however,  not   complied         with  provisions  of Order 41, Rule 27 of the  C.P.C.  which         require  that an Appellate Courts should be  satisfied  that         the additional evidence is required to enable them either to         pronounce judgment or  for  any other substantial cause.  It         had  recorded no reasons to show that it had considered  the         requirements of Rule 27, Order 41,  of  the C.P.C. we are of         opinion  that, the High Court should have recorded its  rea-         sons to show why it found the admission of such evidence  to         be  necessary for some substantial reason.  And if it  found         it  necessary to admit it, an opportunity should  have  been         given  to the appellant to rebut any inference arising  from         its existence by  leading  other evidence.             The result is that we allow these appeals and set  aside         the  judgment  and  order of the Karnataka  High  Court  and         direct it to decide the cases afresh on evidence on  record,         so as to determine the market value of the land acquired  on         the  date  of  the  notification  under section  16  of  the         Bangalore  Act.   It will also decide the   question,  after         affording  parties opportunities  to  lead  necessary   evi-         dence,  whether the judgment, sought to be offered as  addi-         tional evidence, could be admitted.         The parties will bear their own costs.         V.P.S.                                                Appeal         allowed.         (1) C.A. No. 176 of 1962, decided on 10-4-1963.         194