{"id":15908,"date":"1976-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-08-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976"},"modified":"2015-08-20T07:52:39","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T02:22:39","slug":"land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976","title":{"rendered":"Land Acquisition Officer, City … vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Land Acquisition Officer, City … vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2403, \t\t 1977 SCR (1) 178<\/div>\n
Author: M H Beg<\/div>\n
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENTTRUST BOARD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nH. NARAYANAIAH ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/08\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 2403\t\t  1977 SCR  (1) 178\n 1976 SCC  (4)\t 9\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1976 SC2517\t (2,3,5,8)\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Land  acquisition--City  of Bangalore  Improvement\tAct,\n\t1945,  ss. 16  18 and 27--Notification under ss. 16. and  18\n\ton  different dates--Date for determining market  value\t for\n\tawarding compensation for acquisition of land.\n\t    Evidence Act (1 of 1872) s. 43 and Code of Civil  Proce-\n\tdure  (ACt 5 of 1908) O. 41, 27--Admission of  Judgments  in\n\tland acquisition proceedings  as  additional  evidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t     The  City of Bangalore Improvement Act,  1945,  is\t con-\n\tcerned\twith   the improvement and future expansion  of\t the\n\tcity,  and for the appointment of a Board of  Trustees\twith\n\tspecial\t powers to carry out that purpose.  As. an  incident\n\tof such improvement and expansion, it provides for  acquisi-\n\ttion of land also.  .Section 16 of the Act provides for\t the\n\tpublication  of a notice so that any  representations  which\n\tobjectors  may make  may be considered by  the Board  itself\n\tunder s.. 17.  The object of the two sections is to  provide\n\tfor  the notification similar to that under 5. 4(1),  Mysore\n\tLand  Acquisition. Act. 1894, and for hearing of  objections\n\tas  under s. 5A, of that Act.  Section 18 of  the  Bangalore\n\tAct  provides  for  the publication in the  Gazette  of\t the\n\tdeclaretion that the land is acquired for a public; purpose.\n\tSection\t 27  provides that acquisitions\t otherwise  than  by\n\tagreement,  shall  be  regulated by the\t provisions  of\t the\n\tAcquisition  Act  in so far as they are\t applicable  and  by\n\tcertain\t further  provisions in the section.  Section  27(1)\n\tprovides that upon the passing of a resolution by the  Board\n\tthat  an  improvement  scheme under s. 14  is  necessary  in\n\trespect of any locality, it shall be lawful for any  person,\n\tauthorised  by the Board to do all such acts in\t respect  of\n\tthe  land as it would be lawful for an officer\tduly  autho-\n\trised  by  the Government under s. 4(2) of  the\t Acquisition\n\tAct;  and  under s. 27(2) the publication Of  a\t declaration\n\tunder  s.  18  shall be deemed to be the  publication  of  a\n\tdeclaration under s. 6, Acquisition Act\n\t    In\tthe present case, the notifications under s.  16  of\n\tthe Bangalore Act were issued in 1960 and the  notifications\n\tunder  s. 18 were published in 1967.  On the question as  to\n\twhich  date  was to be taken for the  determination  of\t the\n\tmarket\tvalue for the purpose of awarding compensation,\t the\n\tHigh Court held that the date of notification under s. 18 is\n\tthe  relevant date.  The High. Court held that\tdecision  of\n\tFull  Bench of the High Court in Venkatamma v. Special\tLand\n\tAcquisition Officer (AIR 1972 Mysore 193) covered the  ques-\n\ttion:  and it also relied on another decision of the  Court,\n\tdetermining compensation with respect of the acquisition  of\n\tcertain other lands, as relevant evidence for the purpose of\n\tdetermining compensation in the instant case.  In appeal to.\n\tthis Court the respondent also supported the judgment of the\n\tHigh  Court on the ground that s. 23(1) of  the\t Acquisition\n\tAct  which  provides that the determination  of\t the  market\n\tvalue  should  be  as on the date of the  publication  of  a\n\tnotification  under s. 41(1), would not apply, because,\t (a)\n\tno. principle o.r procedure governing award of\tcompensation\n\tis specified in the Bangalore Act, (b) the words \"so far  as\n\tapplicable\", used in s. 27, are equivalent to \"in so far  as\n\tthey  are  specifically mentioned\"; and s. 23(1) is  not  so\n\tspecifically  mentioned;  and, (c) since  no.  procedure  or\n\tprinciple is laid down for the= award of compensation in the\n\tBangalore Act, it would be equitable to hold that the market\n\tvalue should be determined with reference to the late.r date\n\tof. the notification under s 18 of the Act.\n\tAllowing the appeal,\n\tHELD:  The matter should be remanded to the High  Court\t for\n\tdetermination of the market value of the land as on the date\n\tof the notification under\n\t179\n\ts.  16\tof  the Bangalore Act,\twhich  corresponds  to.\t the\n\tnotification  under s. 4(1 ) of the Acquisition\t Act,  after\n\taffording opportunities to the parties whether the  judgment\n\tsought\tto  be offered as additional evidence  could  be  so\n\tadmitted shall be decided. [193 E-F]\n\t     (1)(a)  The Full Bench of the High Court, while  inter-\n\tpreting\t the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903,  observed\n\tthat  the Acquisition Act had been amended in 1927 so as  to\n\tmake compensation payable as on the date of the notification\n\tunder  s. 4(1) of that Act instead of the date of  notifica-\n\ttion under s. 6 according to the unamended law and but that,\n\tin  the\t Mysore Act, there was no  corresponding  amendment.\n\tTherefore,  the Mysore Act had to  be construed with  refer-\n\tence  to  the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act  as  it\n\tstood in 1903. [182 F-G]\n\t     But,  the\tBangalore Act, even though  its\t corresponds\n\tsubstantially with the provisions of the Mysore Act of 1903,\n\tshould be interpreted with reference to the Acquisition\t Act\n\tas  it\tstood  in 1945, because, the  Bangalore\t  Act\twas,\n\tenacted in 1945. [182 H]\n\t  (b)  The Full Bench also held that if there was long delay\n\tbetween the two notifications, the acquisition itself  would\n\tbe  unconstitutional, and the.re.fore the date of  notifica-\n\ttion  under  s. 18 would be the relevant  date.\t  The  delay\n\tbetween\t the dates of notification under s. 16 and under  s.\n\t18 would not have any bearing on the question of the date on\n\twhich  the market value is to, be determined, because, if  a\n\tparticular  acquisition becomes unconstitutional due  to  an\n\tunreasonable  mode.  of exercising the statutory  powers  of\n\tacquisition,  the meaning of provisions, which are  relevant\n\tfor  determining  the  date of market value,  could  not  be\n\taffected.  [183 F-H, 184 A]\n\t    (2)\t Under\ts. 43, Evidence Act,  judgments\t other\tthan\n\tthose  falling under ss. 40 to 42, Evidence Act are  irrele-\n\tvant  unless  they fall under some other provisions  of\t the\n\tEvidence Act.  In the present case, the earlier judgment  of\n\tthe High Court cannot operate as resjudicata because  it  is\n\tnot  between the same parties.\t Such judgments are also not\n\tjudgments  in rem.  However, in Khaja Fizuddin v.  State  of\n\tAndhra Pradesh (CA. No. 176 dt.. 10-4-1963) this Court\theld\n\tthat  such  judgments would be relevant if  they  relate  to\n\tsimilarly situated properties and contain determinations  of\n\tvalue  on dates fairly proximate to the relevant date  in  a\n\tcase.  BUt, in the present case, the appellant was not given\n\tany opportunity of showing that the earlier judgment related\n\tto dissimilar land.  The High Court also did not comply with\n\tthe  provisions of 0.41 r. 27, C.P.C. before  admitting\t the\n\tearlier judgment as additional evidence.  It had recorded no\n\t'reasons to show that it had considered the requirements or'\n\tthe rule and why it found the admission of such evidence  to\n\tbe necessary.\n\t[191 G-H, 192 B-H 193 A-B]\n\t    Special  Land  Acquisition Officer, Bombay\tv.  Lakhamsi\n\tGhelabhai, AIR 1960 Bom. 78, referred to.\n\t(3)(a) Section 27 of the Bangalore Act enables the procedure\n\tin the Acquisition Act to be utilised except tel the  extent\n\tto which the procedure in the bangalore Act may differ\tfrom\n\tthat in the Acquisition act. These difference  s. 27(2)\t and\n\t(2);  are:  (i)\t that the Board of Trustees  could  do\tthe:\n\tthings\tprovided  for in s. 4.(2) of  the  Acquisition:\t Act\n\twithout a notification under s. 4(1); and (ii) the notifica-\n\ttion under s. 18 of the Bangalore Act is equated to the\t one\n\tunder  s.  6 of the Land Acquisition Act.   Therefore,\teven\n\tthough\ts.  23 of the Acquisition Act is'  not\tspecifically\n\tmentioned  in the Bangalore Act, the obvious purpose of\t the\n\topening words of s. 27 of the Bangalore Act, and the  effect\n\tof non-specification of a different principle in the  Banga-\n\tlore  Act,  is that the award of compensation,\twhich  is  a\n\tnecessary part\tof any law providing for acquisition must be\n\tgoverned by s. 23 of the Acquisition Act, which is the\tonly\n\tprovision  applicable; for determining the date\t  of  market\n\tvalue.[189 D-G]\n\t(b)  The  words \"so far as they are  applicable\"  cannot  be\n\tequated\t to in so far as they are  specifically\t mentioned.\"\n\tThe  words are used to exclude only those provisions of\t the\n\tacquisition Act which become inapplicable, because\n\t180\n\tof  the special procedure prescribe.d by the Bangalore\tAct.\n\tThey  cannot  be construed as excluding the  application  of\n\tgeneral\t provisions  such as s. 23 of the  Acquisition\tAct.\n\tThey amount to stating that what is not either expressly  or\n\tby  necessary implication excluded must be applied. [190  H,\n\t191 A-B]\n\t    (c)\t Equity supplements but does not supplant law.\t If,\n\tin the face of the provision that the notification under  s.\n\t18, Bangalore Act is equated with a notification under s.  6\n\tof  the. Acquisition Act for the purpose of determining\t the\n\tmarket value for awarding compensation, some  transcendental\n\tprinciple of' equity is applied, then, it would be supplant-\n\ting  the  law laid down in s. 27 of the Bangalore  Act\tread\n\twith  s. 23 of the Acquisition Act. It would also be  absurd\n\tto hold that a notification under s.18, Bangalore Act, could\n\tbe  equated  with a notification under s.  4(1)\t Acquisition\n\tAct.   Therefore,  the relevant date would be  the  date  of\n\tnotification under s. 16, because, the objects achieved by a\n\tnotification under s. 16, Bangalore Act, and one under s. 4,\n\tAcquisition  Act are identical.\t In the Full Bench  decision\n\tof the High Court, it was held. relying on s. 23 of the City\n\tof  Mysore  Improvement\t Act, 1903 that s. 14  of  that\t Act\n\tshould be equated to s. 4(1) of the Acquisition Act.  But in\n\tview  of the provisions of r. 27 of the Bangalore  Act,\t the\n\tonly  result  of  equating  a resolution under s. 14 of\t the\n\tBangalore  Act\twith  a notification under s.  4(1)  of\t the\n\tAcquisition  Act would be to shift the date of\tascertaining\n\tof market value still further back which is not the  conten-\n\ttion of the respondents. [191 A, F]\n\t    OBITER:  An\t additional compliance with s. 4(1)  of\t the\n\tAcquisition   Act  is not necessary in view of\tthe  special\n\tprocedure unders. 16 of the Bangalore Act: and, it would  be\n\treasonable  for the authorities to exercise the powers\tpro-\n\tvided for by s. 27(1) of the Bangalore Act, corresponding to\n\tthose  in  s. 4(2) of the Acquisition Act,  only  after\t the\n\tnotification under s. 16 of the Bangalore Act. [185 B.C]\n\tM.  Manicklal  v. The State of Mysore 1967  (2)\t M.L.J.\t 239\n\tapproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 644-650\/74.
\n\t    (Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  21-6-1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Misc.  First
\n\tAppeal Nos. 77, 444-450\/70 respectively).\n<\/p>\n
\t     K.\t Sen, V.M. Tarkunde, H.B. Datar and R.B.  Datar\t for
\n\tthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t    S.\tRangaraj, M. Qamaruddin, P.N. Purl, S.K.  Mehta\t for
\n\tMr. K.R. Naggrain, for respondent in CA. No. 644\/74.
\n\t    A.R. Somnath Iyer,\tS. Laxminarasu,\t for respondents  in
\n\tCA. Nos. 645-650\/74.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    BEG, J.  Civil Appeals Nos. 644. to. 650 of 1974 are  by
\n\tspecial\t leave against the judgment of a Division  Bench  of
\n\tthe Karnataka High Court.  The common and principal question
\n\tof law which arises is: Does the City of Bangalore  Improve-
\n\tment Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ or ‘the
\n\tBangalore Act’), applying the provisions of the Land  Acqui-
\n\tsition\tAct,  1894  (Central Act 1  of\t1894).\t(hereinafter
\n\treferred  to as ‘the Acquisition Act’), to  acquisitions  of
\n\tland in Bangalore require the determination of market value,
\n\tfor purposes of awarding compensation, on a date correspond-
\n\ting to the date of notifi-\n<\/p>\n
\t181<\/span><\/p>\n
\tcation under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act or to the date
\n\tcorresponding to that of the notification under Section 6 of
\n\tthe Acquisition Act
\n\t    The\t facts of the cases are not really material for\t the
\n\tdetermination  of the question of law stated above.   A\t few
\n\tfacts  relating to the lands acquired may, however, be\tmen-
\n\ttioned.\t They have a bearing  on  a connected question dealt
\n\twith at the end of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t seven\tappeals by special leave arise out  of\tland
\n\tacquisition proceedings in which the 1st of the\t preliminary
\n\tnotifications,\tunder Section 16 of the Bangalore Act,\ttook
\n\tplace  in  the Mysore Gazette from 1960\t onwards;  and,\t the
\n\tsubsequent notifications, under Section 18 of the  Bangalore
\n\tAct,  equated  by Section 27(2) of the\tBangalore  Act\twith
\n\tnotifications  under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act,\twere
\n\tmade  in 1967.\tAll the lands involved in these appeals\t are
\n\tsituated in Birmamangala Village, Bangalore North Taluk, and
\n\tare  .shown  to have been acquired for the  purposes.  of  a
\n\tscheme\tknown as ‘Bhinnamangala Lay Out II Stage  or  Indira
\n\tNagar Extension’.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t Bangalore  Act, as its preamble states,  is  really
\n\tconcerned with the “improvement and future expansion of\t the
\n\tCity  of  Bangalore and for the appointment of\ta  Board  of
\n\tTrustees  with\t.special powers to carry out  the  aforesaid
\n\tpurposes;”. As an incident of this improvement and expansion
\n\tit  provides  for acquisition of land also..  It  does\tnot,
\n\thowever, contain a separate code of its own for such  acqui-
\n\tsitions. But, Section 27 of the Bangalore Act lays down:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “27. Provisions applicable by the acquisition
\n\t\t of land otherwise than by agreement.–The  acquisi-
\n\t\t tion  otherwise than by agreement of land within or
\n\t\t without the City under this Act shall be  regulated
\n\t\t by the provisions, ,so. far as they are applicable,
\n\t\t of  the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894,  and  by
\n\t\t the following further provisions, namely :–
\n\t\t\t (1) Upon the passing of a resolution by  the
\n\t\t Board\tthat an improvement scheme under Section  14
\n\t\t is  necessary in respect of any locality, it  shall
\n\t\t be  lawful for any person either generally or\tspe-
\n\t\t cially\t authorised by the Board in this behalf\t and
\n\t\t for  his servants and workmen, to do all such\tacts
\n\t\t on  or\t in respect of land in that locality  as  it
\n\t\t would\tbe lawful for an officer duly authorised  by
\n\t\t the  Government  to act under Section 4(2)  of\t the
\n\t\t Mysore\t Land  Acquisition  Act, 1894  and  for\t his
\n\t\t servants  and\tworkmen to do  thereunder;  and\t the
\n\t\t provision  contained in Section 5 of the  said\t Act
\n\t\t shall\tlikewise be applicable in respect of  damage
\n\t\t caused by any o.f the acts first mentioned.
\n\t\t\t(2)  The publication of a declaration  under
\n\t\t section 18 shall be deemed to be the publication of
\n\t\t a declaration under section 6 of the Mysore’,\tLand
\n\t\t Acquisition Act, 1894.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 182<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t       (3) For the purposes of section 50(2) of\t the
\n\t\t Mysore\t Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Board  shall
\n\t\t be deemed to be the local authority concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (4)  After the land vests in  the  Government
\n\t\t under\tsection\t 16 of the Mysore  Land\t Acquisition
\n\t\t Act,  1894  the  Deputy  Commissioner\tshall,\tupon
\n\t\t payment  of the cost of the acquisition,  and
\n\t\t upon  the Board agreeing to pay any  further  costs
\n\t\t which\tmay be incurred on account of  the  acquisi-
\n\t\t tion, transfer the land to the Board, and the\tland
\n\t\t shall thereupon vested in the Board”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     The Mysore Land Acquisition Act of 1894 exactly
\n\t\t reproduces  our Central Land Acquisition Act  1  of
\n\t\t 1894.\t Therefore,  the term ‘Acquisition  Act’  in
\n\t\t this judgment covers references to both the  Mysore
\n\t\t Land  Acquisition Act as well as the  Central\tLand
\n\t\t Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. It was stated by Counsel
\n\t\t that  the  Mysore  Land Acquisition  Act  was\talso
\n\t\t correspondingly amended whenever provisions of\t the
\n\t\t Central  Land\tAcquisition  Act  1  of\t 1894\twere
\n\t\t altered .so that the two could be treated as  iden-
\n\t\t tical for our purposes.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     The judgment and orders of the Division  Bench,
\n\t\t under\tappeal before us, purports to follow a\tFull
\n\t\t Bench\tdecision of the Mysore High Court in  Venka-
\n\t\t tamrna\t v.  Special  Land  Acquisition\t Officer(1),
\n\t\t where it was held that the relevant date for deter-
\n\t\t mining\t the  market  value of the  property  to  be
\n\t\t acquired is the date of notification under  section
\n\t\t 18  of the City of Mysore Improvement Act of  1903.
\n\t\t It  appears  that the provisions of the  last\tmen-
\n\t\t tioned\t Mysore Act of 1903 largely correspond\twith
\n\t\t the provisions of the Bangalore Act before us.
\n\t\t     It has, however, to be remembered that the\t Act
\n\t\t which\tthe  Full Bench of the Mysore High Court was
\n\t\t interpreting  was. enacted in 1903. It had,  there-
\n\t\t fore, to be construed with reference to the  provi-
\n\t\t sions\tof the Acquisition Act as it stood in  1903.
\n\t\t The Mysore Full Bench had observed that the  Mysore
\n\t\t Land Acquisition Act had been amended by the Mysore
\n\t\t Act  1 of 1927 “so as to make compensation  payable
\n\t\t as  on the date of publication of the\tnotification
\n\t\t under\tsection\t 4(1) of that Act” instead  of\twith
\n\t\t reference  to\tthe  date   of\t notification  under
\n\t\t section 6 according to the unamended law.  It said:
\n\t\t “It  is significant to note that the Mysore  Legis-
\n\t\t lature\t did not  make\tany corresponding  amendment
\n\t\t in the Act” (that is to say, the City of Mysore Act
\n\t\t of 1903).  The Bangalore Act, even though  it\t may
\n\t\t Correspond substantially with the provisions of the
\n\t\t Mysore\t Improvement Act 3 of 1903, was\t enacted  in
\n\t\t 1945.\t Hence, references in the Bangalore  Act  to
\n\t\t the  Acquisition  Act,\t which\thad   been   amended
\n\t\t considerably between 1903 and 1945, could not\thave
\n\t\t the same effect as similar references to the Acqui-
\n\t\t sition\t Act  in the Mysore Act of 1903.   We  think
\n\t\t that  the  Division Bench of the   Karnataka\tHigh
\n\t\t Court overlooked this vital distinction.
\n\t\t (1) A.I.R. 1972 Mysore 193.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 183<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t     The  Full\tBench of the Mysore High  Court\t ex-
\n\t\t pressed the view that the contention that a notifi-
\n\t\t cation\t under Section 16 of the Mysore Act of\t1903
\n\t\t could be equated with a notification under  section
\n\t\t 4   of\t the Acquisition Act was  negatived  by\t the
\n\t\t provisions  of\t Section    23 sub. s.\t(1)  of\t the
\n\t\t Mysore Act of 1903.  It said (at p. 198):\n<\/p>\n
\t     “Section 23 (1) of the Act states that upon the passing
\n\tof  a  resolution by the Board that  an\t improvement  scheme
\n\tunder  Section 14 is necessary, it would be lawful  for\t any
\n\tperson\tauthorised  by\tthe Board to enter  upon   the\tland
\n\tcarry out the several acts on the land in question as provid
\n\ted  under  section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act and  the\t pro
\n\tvisions\t of section 5 of the Acquisition Act would  likewise
\n\tbe  applicable\tin respect of damage caused by\tany  of\t the
\n\tacts of servants or workmen of the Board”.
\n\tIt,  therefore, thought that what was sought to be  achieved
\n\tby notification under section 4( 1 ) of the Acquisition\t Act
\n\twas done by a resolution under section 14 of the Mysore Act.
\n\tTaking\tthe  view  that\t such a\t resolution  could  only  be
\n\tanterior  to the publication of the notification under\tsec-
\n\ttion 16, it equated the notification under section 16 of the
\n\tMysore\tAct  with  a notification under\t section  6  of\t the
\n\tAcquisition  Act.   Thus, the Mysore. Full  Bench  found  in
\n\tSection\t 23 (1) of the Mysore Act of 1903,  a  justification
\n\tfor  equating  provisions of section 14 of  that  Act  with,
\n\tthose of section 4(1) of  the  Acquisition Act.\t But, we  do
\n\tnot  find either in section 23 of the Bangalore\t Act,  which
\n\tdeals  with an entirely different subject matter,  or,\tany-
\n\twhere,\tapart from section 27, additional provision  (1)  of
\n\tthe Bangalore Act, a similar provision which could ;indicate
\n\tthat  proceedings  under a section other  than\tthose  under
\n\tsection\t 16 of the Bangalore Act could\tpossibly  correspond
\n\twith those under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act.\tAnd,
\n\twe think that to equate a resolution under section 14 of the
\n\tAct with a notification under section 4(1) of  the  Acquisi-
\n\ttion Act, on a similar reasoning, would be to miss the\tvery
\n\tdifferent purposes meant to be served by a resolution  under
\n\tsection\t 14  of the Bangalore Act and a\t notification  under
\n\tsection 4(1) of the Acquisition Act.  Such reasoning appears
\n\tto us to be very far fetched.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Another  reason  given by the Full Bench of\t the  Mysore
\n\tHigh  Court, for holding that market value should be  deter-
\n\tmined  as on the date of notification under section  18\t and
\n\tnot  that  of  notification under section 16 of the City  of
\n\tMysore Improvement  Act\t (both these sections, correspond to
\n\tsection 16 and 18 of the  Bangalore Act) was that a delay of
\n\t20  years  between the\ttwo  notifications  would  make\t the
\n\tacquisition unconstitutional.  We  are\tunable\tto  appreci-
\n\tate the bearing of this consideration on a decision  of\t the
\n\tstatutory requirements as to the date on which market  value
\n\tis  to\tbe determined for purposes of  compensation.   If  a
\n\tparticular  acquisition becomes unconstitutional due  to  an
\n\tunreasonable   mode  of exercising the statutory  powers  of
\n\tacquisition,  neither the provision which  is\tso   misused
\n\tnor  the  meaning. of  other  provisions, which are relevant
\n\tfor  determining the date  of  market  value,  is  affected.
\n\tWe are constrained to observe that some of the\treasons
\n\t184<\/span>
\n\tgiven by the Full Bench of the Mysore High Court as well  as
\n\tthe Division Benches of the Karnataka High Court have little
\n\tconnection with the date on which the market value has to be
\n\tdetermined according to statutory provisions.  A pure  ques-
\n\ttion of\t interpretation\t of fairly clearly expressed  legis-
\n\tlative\tintent\twhich should not have been permitted  to  be
\n\tfogged by adverting to irrelevant matters.
\n\tIt  is\ttrue  that the Bangalore Act has  its  own  distinct
\n\tpurposes  and prescribed modes in which they are to be\tcar-
\n\tried  out.  Acquisition of land, as already observed,  is  a
\n\tmere  incident in the carrying out of those purposes.\tSec-
\n\ttion  26 of the Act gives, it the power to acquire  land  by
\n\tagreement.  Section 27 of the Act reproduced above,  enables
\n\tthe procedure ‘found in the Acquisition Act to\tbe  utilised
\n\texcept\tto the extent to which the procedure for  compulsory
\n\tacquisition  in the Bangalore Act may differ from that\tcon-
\n\ttained\t in  the Acquisition Act.  Section 27 of the  Banga-
\n\tlore   Act   gives  certain “further  provisions”  indicated
\n\tunder  four heads.  Apparently. these are  meant   to\tdis-
\n\tplace  corresponding actions under the Acquisition Act.\t  We
\n\thave  to identify the corresponding provisions only for\t the
\n\tpurposes of applying Section 23(1) of the Acquisition Act.
\n\t  It  is evident that the first of these  additional  provi-
\n\tsions  enables the Board of Trustees, by virtue\t of  section
\n\t14,  to\t  undertake   what could have been  done  under\t the
\n\tAcquisition Act only after a notification under section\t 4(1
\n\t)  of  the Acquisition Act.  In other words,  the  deviation
\n\tfrom the procedure laid down in the Acquisition Act is that,
\n\twhereas\t the  Agents of the Govt. could not  undertake\tany-
\n\tthing  provided for by section 4(2) of the  Acquisition\t Act
\n\twithout a notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition
\n\tAct, the Board of Trustees could do those very things  with-
\n\tout  any notification under section 4(1) of the\t Acquisition
\n\tAct.   Even if we could equate the resolution under  section
\n\t14  of the Bangalore Act with a notification  under  section
\n\t4(1) of the Acquisition Act, we could not dispense with\t the
\n\trequirements  of section 23(1) of the Acquisition Act  which
\n\tis  the only provision applicable for determining  the\tdate
\n\tof   the  market  value.   The only  result  of\t equating  a
\n\tresolution  under  section  14\twith  a\t notification  under
\n\tsection\t 4(1) of the Acquisition Act could be to  shift\t the
\n\tdate  of as certainment of market value farther back.\tBut,
\n\tthat is not what the respondents contend for.
\n\tThe second additional provision under  section\t27(2)  seems
\n\tdesigned, by way of abundant caution, to clarify the   mean-
\n\ting of\tprovisions of section 18 of the Act,  Obviously,  it
\n\tprevents  any\tconstruction which could enable a  notifica-
\n\ttion  under section 18 of   the Bangalore Act to be  equated
\n\twith  section 4(1) of the Act. To hold that  a\tnotification
\n\tunder section 18 of the Bangalore Act could be equated\twith
\n\tsection\t 4(1)  of the Acquisition Act, in the face  of\tthis
\n\tclear  provision,  equating  it with  a\t notification  under
\n\tsection\t 6  of the Acquisition Act, is\tto  countenance\t the
\n\tobvious\t absurdity  that there is no  difference  between  a
\n\tnotification under section 4(1) and section 6 of the  Acqui-
\n\tsition Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t     A\tpossible line of argument, in view of the 1st  addi-
\n\ttional\tprovision in section 27 of the Bangalore Act,  could
\n\tbe that,  since the
\n\t185<\/span>
\n\tgeneral\t procedure  under the Acquisition  Act\tapplies,   a
\n\tnotification  under  section  4(1) of  the  Acquisition\t Act
\n\titself should precede any action under section 14 of the Act
\n\twhich  is to be\t equated  with section 4(2) of the  Acquisi-
\n\ttion Act.  But, that has not  been  the argument of any side
\n\teither\tin the Karnataka High Court or before us.  Had\tthat
\n\tbeen necessary and no notification under section 4(1) of the
\n\tAct had taken place, the validity of the  whole\t acquisition
\n\tproceedings  could have been challenged, but, the   validity
\n\tof  the Acquisition proceedings is not assailed before us at
\n\tall.  Such a line   reasoning would be also shut out by\t the
\n\tprinciple  that the particular and the\tespecially  provided
\n\tprocedure ;would exclude the more general if we hold, as  we
\n\thave  to  having regard to Section 16 of the Act,  that\t the
\n\tspecial\t procedure  was meant to take the place\t of  and  to
\n\tserve  the same object as the general.\tThe  argument\tthat
\n\tan  additional compliance with section 4(1) of-the  Acquisi-
\n\ttion  Act  was necessary despite the  special  procedure  in
\n\tsection\t 16 of the Act, which fulfils the same function,  is
\n\talso  repelled by the correct view taken in M. Manicklal  v.
\n\tthe   State   of   Mysore   (1)\t   by\tthe   Mysore\tHigh
\n\tcourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  real  question before us is whether  the  market  value
\n\tshould be determined with reference to the date of notifica-
\n\ttion  under  section  16 of the Act.  As we  find  that\t the
\n\tnotification under section 18 has been actually equated,  by
\n\tthe second additional provision\t contained in section 27  of
\n\tthe  Bangalore Act, with a notification under section  6  of
\n\tthe  Acquisition Act, so that it could not be  also  equated
\n\twith any notification under section 4(1) of the\t Acquisition
\n\tAct  and, as we also find that the provisions of section  16
\n\tof the Bangalore Act and section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act
\n\tshow that the obvious intention behind and objects  achieved
\n\tby a notification under\t section 16 of the Act and one under
\n\tsection 4(1 ) of the Acquisition Act are identical, we think
\n\tthat it is most reasonable to hold that it is not  necessary
\n\tat  all, in such cases, to comply with section 4(1)  of\t the
\n\tAcquisition Act in addition  to\t complying  with  section 16
\n\tof  the\t Bangalore Act.\t The general provisions\t of  section
\n\t4(1)  of  the Acquisition Act are displaced by\tthe  special
\n\tprovisions of section 16 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tHere,  we  may set out the provisions of section  4  of\t the
\n\tAcquisition Act and section 16 of the Bangalore Act to indi-
\n\tcate  the identity of purposes and the extent of  similarity
\n\tof procedure.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection A of the Acquisition Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “4.  Publication of preliminary\tnotification
\n\t\t and powers of officers there upon.–(1) Whenever it
\n\t\t appears to the appropriate Government or the Deputy
\n\t\t Commissioner that land in any locality is needed or
\n\t\t is  likely to be needed for any public\t purpose,  a
\n\t\t notification stating the purpose for which the land
\n\t\t is  needed, or likely to be needed, and  describing
\n\t\t the land by its survey number, if any, and also  by
\n\t\t its boundaries and its approximate area;  shall  be
\n\t\t published in the  official  Gazette,\t   and\t its
\n\t\t Deputy\t Commissioner
\n\t\t (1) 1967 (2) M.L.J.p.239
\n\t\t 1414–1003SCI\/76
\n\t\t 186<\/span>
\n\t\t shall\tcause  public  notice\tof   the   substance
\n\t\t of  such notification\tto  be given  at  convenient
\n\t\t places\t in the said locality.\tThe  Deputy  Commis-
\n\t\t sioner\t may also cause a copy of such\tnotification
\n\t\t to  be served on the owner, or where the  owner  is
\n\t\t not  the  occupier, on the occupier  of  the  land.
\n\t\t Explanation.–The expression  ‘convenient   places’
\n\t\t includes,  in the case of land situated in  a\tvil-
\n\t\t lage,\tthe  office of the  panchayat  within  whose
\n\t\t jurisdiction the land lies.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      (1A)  The notification under  sub-section\t (1)
\n\t\t shall\talso specify the date, (such date not  being
\n\t\t less than thirty days from the date of\t publication
\n\t\t of  the notification) on or before which,  and\t the
\n\t\t manner in which, objections to the proposed  acqui-
\n\t\t sition\t may be made, under section 5A.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (2) On the publication of such notification it shah
\n\t\t be  lawful  for any Officer,  either  generally  or
\n\t\t specially  authorized by such Government or by\t the
\n\t\t Deputy\t Commissioner  in this behalf, and  for\t his
\n\t\t servants  and workmento enter upon and\t survey\t and
\n\t\t take  levels of the land; to dig or bore  into\t the
\n\t\t sub-soil;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether
\n\t\t the land is adapted for such purpose;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t to  set out the boundaries of the land proposed  to
\n\t\t be  taken  and the intended line of work  (if\tany)
\n\t\t proposed to be made thereon;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing
\n\t\t marks and cutting trenches; and
\n\t\t where otherwise the survey cannot be  completed and
\n\t\t the  levels  taken  and  the  boundaries  and\tline
\n\t\t marked, to cut down and clear away any part of\t any
\n\t\t standing crop, fence or jungle:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Provided  that no person shall enter  into\t any
\n\t\t building  or  upon  any enclosed  court  or  garden
\n\t\t attached to a dwelling house (unless with the\tcon-
\n\t\t sent  of .the occupier thereof) without  previously
\n\t\t giving such occupier at least seven days notice  in
\n\t\t writing of his intention to do so.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     (3 ) Where the acquisition is for a company, an
\n\t\t officer  of such company may be authorised  by\t the
\n\t\t appropriate  Government or the Deputy\tCommissioner
\n\t\t to  exercise  the powers conferred  by\t sub-section
\n\t\t (2).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     (4)  The Officer authorised, under\t sub-section
\n\t\t (2)or sub-section (3) shall complete his investiga-
\n\t\t tion  and submit his report to the  Deputy  Commis-
\n\t\t sioner\t within a period of three months (or  within
\n\t\t such longer period not exceeding six months in\t all
\n\t\t as  the  Deputy Commissioner may allow),  from\t the
\n\t\t date  of the publication of the notification  under
\n\t\t subsection (1). with his remarks to the appropriate
\n\t\t Government along-with his report under\t sub-section
\n\t\t (2) of section 5A”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 187<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t Section 16 of the Bangalore Act enacts:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   “16.\t   Procedure   on   completion\t  of
\n\t\t scheme.–(1) Upon the completion of an\t improvement
\n\t\t scheme,  the  Board shall draw\t up  a\tnotification
\n\t\t stating  the fact of a scheme having been made\t and
\n\t\t the  limits  of  the area  comprised  therein,\t and
\n\t\t naming\t a place where particulars of the scheme,  a
\n\t\t map  of the area comprised therein and a  statement
\n\t\t specifying the land which it is proposed to acquire
\n\t\t and  of the land in regard to which it is  proposed
\n\t\t to  recover  a betterment fee may be  seen  at\t all
\n\t\t reasonable hours; and Shall-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (a)  Copy  of notification of  scheme  to  be
\n\t\t communicated to May  or of the Corporation-Communi-
\n\t\t cate  a copy of such notification to the  Mayor  of
\n\t\t the Corporation who shall, with in thirty days from
\n\t\t the  date of receipt thereof forward to the  Board,
\n\t\t for transmission to the Government as\t hereinafter
\n\t\t provided, any representation which the\t Corporation
\n\t\t may think fit to make with regard to the scheme;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    (b) Publication of\tnotification.–Cause a\tcopy
\n\t\t of  the said notification to be publication  during
\n\t\t three\tconsecutive weeks in the Mysore Gazette\t and
\n\t\t posted\t up  in some conspicuous part  of  its\t own
\n\t\t office,  the  Deputy  Commissioner’s  office,\t the
\n\t\t office of the Corporation and in such other  places
\n\t\t as the Board may consider necessary.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     (2) Service of notices on owners of property to
\n\t\t be  acquired in executing the\tscheme.–During\t the
\n\t\t thirty\t days next following the day on\t which\tsuch
\n\t\t notification is published in the Mysore Gazette the
\n\t\t Board\tshall serve a notice on every  person  whose
\n\t\t name appears in the assessment list of the Corpora-
\n\t\t tion or the Municipality or local body concerned or
\n\t\t in  the  land revenue register as  being  primarily
\n\t\t liable\t to   pay the property tax or  land  revenue
\n\t\t assessment  on\t any building or land  which  it  is
\n\t\t proposed to acquire in executing the scheme, or  in
\n\t\t regard\t to  which the Board proposes to  recover  a
\n\t\t betterment fee, stating that the Board proposes to
\n\t\t acquire  such building or land or to  recover\tsuch
\n\t\t bettermentfee\tfor the purpose of carrying  out  an
\n\t\t improvement scheme and. requiring an answer  within
\n\t\t thirty days from the date of service of the  notice
\n\t\t stating  whether the person so\t served,dissents  or
\n\t\t not to such acquisition of the building or land  or
\n\t\t to the recovery of such betterment fee, and if\t the
\n\t\t person dissents, the reasons for such dissent.
\n\t\t (3) Notice how to be served.–Such notice shall  be
\n\t\t signed\t by,  or by the order of, the  Chairman\t and
\n\t\t shall be served-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (a)  by  delivery of the same\t personally  to\t the
\n\t\t person\t required to be served or if such person  is
\n\t\t absent\t or cannot be found, to his agent, or if  no
\n\t\t agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the
\n\t\t land or building; or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (b) by leaving the same at the usual or last  known
\n\t\t place of abode or business of such person as afore-
\n\t\t said; or
\n\t\t 188<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      (c)  by  registered  post\t  addressed  to\t the
\n\t\t usual\tor last known place of abode or business  of
\n\t\t such person”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t It will be set that Section 16 of the Bangalore Act
\n\t\t provides even more elaborately for the\t publication
\n\t\t of  the  initial notice which is given\t in  section
\n\t\t 4(1) of the Acquisition Act so that any representa-
\n\t\t tions\twhich the objectors may have to make may  be
\n\t\t considered by the Board itself under section 17  of
\n\t\t the  Bangalore\t Act.  Thus, the object\t     of\t the
\n\t\t procedure  provided  by section 16 and\t section  17
\n\t\t seems\tto be to take the place of the\tnotification
\n\t\t under\tsection 4(1) and the hearing  of  objections
\n\t\t under section 5A of the Acquisition Act.  Under the
\n\t\t Bangalore  Act, it is the Board itself which  gives
\n\t\t notices and considers objections to a scheme before
\n\t\t communicating the scheme to the Govt. for sanction.
\n\t\t It is true that the Board has not been specifically
\n\t\t given the power by the Bangalore Act to rescind the
\n\t\t scheme.   The\tBangalore  Act\tonly  mentions\t the
\n\t\t Board’s power to modify the scheme, if it considers
\n\t\t that to be necessary.\tAfter that, the Act  directs
\n\t\t the  Board to send it to the Government  for  sanc-
\n\t\t tion. Of course, the Govt. could either sanction or
\n\t\t reject\t the  scheme.  And, in suitable\t cases,\t the
\n\t\t Board\tcould  perhaps revoke  its  own\t resolution.
\n\t\t But,  we need not consider or decide that  question
\n\t\t here.\t All we need observe here is that  a  corre-
\n\t\t sponding  special procedure, which we find  in\t the
\n\t\t provisions of section 16 of the Bangalore Act, need
\n\t\t not  necessarily  be  identical  with\tthe  general
\n\t\t procedure,  serving the same object, which we\tfind
\n\t\t in  section  4(1) of the Acquisition Act.   We\t are
\n\t\t concerned  more here with the identity\t of  objects
\n\t\t and functions of provisions  rather than with\tthat
\n\t\t of precise steps prescribed or words used in them.
\n\t\t The  next stage is found in section 18\t which\tlays
\n\t\t down:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“18. On receipt of sanction, declaration  to
\n\t\t be  published\tgiving\tparticulars of\tland  to  be
\n\t\t acquired-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (1)  (a) On receipt of the sanction of the  Govern-
\n\t\t ment,. the Chairman shall forward a declaration for
\n\t\t notification under the signature of a Secretary  to
\n\t\t the  Government, stating the fact of such  sanction
\n\t\t and that the land  proposed  to  be acquired by the
\n\t\t Board\tfor the purposes of the scheme\tis  required
\n\t\t for a public purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(b)  The declaration shall be  published  in
\n\t\t the   Mysore  Gazette and shall state\tthe  limits;
\n\t\t within which  the  land proposed to be acquired  is
\n\t\t situate,  the purpose for which it is\tneeded,\t its
\n\t\t approximate area and the place where a plan of\t the
\n\t\t land may be inspected.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(c)  And  upon\tsuch  publication  Board  to
\n\t\t proceed  to execute the scheme.–The said  declara-
\n\t\t tion shall be conclusive evidence that the Land  is
\n\t\t needed\t for a public purpose, and the Board  shall,
\n\t\t upon  the  publication\t of  the  said\tdeclaration,
\n\t\t proceed to execute the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(2)  Board to have power to alter any\tpart
\n\t\t of   the Scheme.–(a) If at any time it appears  to
\n\t\t the  Board that an improvement can be made  in\t any
\n\t\t part of the scheme, the Board may alter the  scheme
\n\t\t for the purpose of making such
\n\t\t 189<\/span>
\n\t\t improvement,  and shall, subject to the  provisions
\n\t\t contained  in\tthe next two clauses  of  this\tsub-
\n\t\t section forthwith proceed to execute the scheme  as
\n\t\t altered.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (b)  If the estimated cost of  executing\t the
\n\t\t scheme\t as altered exceeds, by a greater  sum\tthan
\n\t\t five  per cent the estimated cost of executing\t the
\n\t\t scheme\t  as   sanctioned,   the  Board\t shall\tnot,
\n\t\t without  the  previous\t sanction  of\tthe  Govern-
\n\t\t ment, proceed to execute. the scheme as altered.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (c)  If the scheme as altered  involves\t the
\n\t\t acquisition  otherwise\t than by agreement,  of\t any
\n\t\t land  other  than that specified  in  the  schedule
\n\t\t accompanying the scheme under section 17(2)(e), the
\n\t\t provisions  of sections 16 and 17 an\t    sub-sec-
\n\t\t tion (1) shall apply to the part of the  scheme  so
\n\t\t altered, in the same manner as if such altered part
\n\t\t were the scheme”.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It will be seen that, but for the 1st additional  provi-
\n\tsion, contained in section 27 of the Bangalore Act,  perhaps
\n\tit  could   be\turged that the powers contained\t in  section
\n\t4(2)  of the Acquisition Act and the fight to damages,\tcon-
\n\ttained in section 5 of the Acquisition Act, do not apply  at
\n\tall  to acquisition under the Act.  Hence,  this  additional
\n\tprovision  became  necessary.\tWe are not  called  upon  to
\n\tdetermine  here at what stage, powers under section 4(2)  of
\n\tthe Acquisition Act could or should reasonably be. exercised
\n\tin  a  case  falling under the provisions of  the  Bangalore
\n\tAct.  Nevertheless, we\tmay mention that it would seem\tmore
\n\treasonable  to exercise the powers provided for\t by  section
\n\t27(1)  of the Bangalore Act (i.e. powers in section 4(2)  of
\n\tthe Acquisition Act) only after a notification under section
\n\t16 of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t    An\texamination of the provisions of the  Bangalore\t Act
\n\tand  of acquisition proceedings under the  Acquisition\tAct,
\n\tcontemplated by it, would reveal that, whereas the procedure
\n\tfrom  the  notification under section 4 to the\tnotification
\n\tunder  section 6 of the Acquisition Act gives place  to\t the
\n\tprocedure  provided  by sections 14 to 18 of  the  Bangalore
\n\tAct, the stage at which compensation is to be determined  is
\n\tto  be regulated entirely by the general provisions of\tsec-
\n\ttion  23  (1)  of the Acquisition Act because  there  is  no
\n\tspecial or separate provision in the Bangalore Act to  regu-
\n\tlate  the compensation payable.\t It is true that section  23
\n\tis  not specifically mentioned in the Bangalore\t Act.\tBut,
\n\tthe  obvious purposes of the opening words of section 27  of
\n\tthe Bangalore Act seems to us to be that award of  compensa-
\n\ttion,  which  is a necessary part of any law  providing\t for
\n\tacquisition, must be governed by section 23 of the  Acquisi-
\n\ttion Act.  The last mentioned section enacts:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “23. Matters to be considered in\t determining
\n\t\t compensation.–(1)  In determining the.  amount  of
\n\t\t compensation to be awarded for land acquired  under
\n\t\t this\t Act,\t the\tCourt\tshah\ttake\tinto
\n\t\t consideration–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 190<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t   first, the market value, of the land at the\tdate
\n\t\t of  the  publication of  the  ‘notification   under
\n\t\t section 4,  subsection ( 1 );\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   secondly,  the  damage sustained  by\t the  person
\n\t\t interested, by reason of the taking of any standing
\n\t\t crops\t or  trees which may be on the land  at\t the
\n\t\t time of the Deputy Commissioner’s taking possession
\n\t\t thereof;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   thirdly, the damage (if any),  sustained  by\t the
\n\t\t person\t interested, at the time of the Deputy\tCom-
\n\t\t missioner’s  taking  possession  of  the  land,  by
\n\t\t reason of severing such land from his other land;
\n\t\t   fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained. by\t the
\n\t\t person\t interested, at the time of the Deputy\tCom-
\n\t\t missioner’s  taking  pOssession  of  the  land,  by
\n\t\t reason\t  of  the acquisition injuriously  affecting
\n\t\t his  other  property. movable or immovable, in\t any
\n\t\t other manner, or his earnings;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of
\n\t\t the  land  by the Deputy Commissioner,\t the  person
\n\t\t interested is compelled to change hie residence. or
\n\t\t place\tof  business, the  reasonable  expenses\t (if
\n\t\t any), incidental to such change; and
\n\t\t   sixthly, the damage (if any), bona  fide  result-
\n\t\t ing   from  diminution of the profits of  the\tland
\n\t\t between   the\ttime  of  the  publication  of\t the
\n\t\t declaration   under section 6 and the time  of\t the
\n\t\t Deputy\t Commissioner’s\t taking possession  of\tthe:
\n\t\t land.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       (2)  In addition to the market-value  of\t the
\n\t\t land,\tas above provided, the Court shall in  every
\n\t\t case  award  a sum of fifteen per  centum  on\tsuch
\n\t\t market\t value, in  consideration of the  compulsory
\n\t\t nature of the acquisition”.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Non-specification of a different principle or  procedure
\n\tin the Act, governing award of compensation under the Banga-
\n\tlore Act, far from indicating, as learned Judges of the High
\n\tCourt erroneously opined, that section 23(1) of the Acquisi-
\n\ttion was not applicable here at all, was one of the  strong-
\n\test arguments for holding that it is covered by the  general
\n\tprovisions  applied by section 27 of the Bangalore  Act.  An
\n\tacquisition  proceeding without providing for award of\tcom-
\n\tpensation  on some principle is unthinkable.  Such a  situa-
\n\ttion  would  have invited an attack on the validity  of\t the
\n\tacquisition  itself.   But,  as we  have  already  observed,
\n\tthere is n` such challenge here.\n<\/p>\n
\t    There was some argument on the meaning of the words\t “so
\n\tfar  as\t they  are applicable”, used in section\t 27  of\t the
\n\tBangalore   Act. These words cannot be changed into: “in  so
\n\tfar as they are
\n\t191<\/span>
\n\tspecifically mentioned” with regard to the procedure in\t the
\n\tAcquisition Act.  On the other hand, the obvious  intention,
\n\tin  using these words, was to exclude only those  provisions
\n\tof the Acquisition Act which become inapplicable because  of
\n\tany  special   procedure  prescribed by\t the  Bangalore\t Act
\n\t(e.g. section 16)corresponding with that found in the Acqui-
\n\tsition\tAct  (e.g. section 4(1).  These\t words bring  in  or
\n\tmake  applicable,  so far as this is  reasonably   possible,
\n\tgeneral provisions such as section 23(1) of the\t Acquisition
\n\tAct.  They  cannot be reasonably construed  to\texclude\t the
\n\tapplication  of\t any general provisions of  the\t Acquisition
\n\tAct.  They amount to laying down the principle that what  is
\n\tnot  either  expressly, or, by.\t a  necessary  implication,,
\n\texcluded  must be applied.  It\tis  surprising to find\tmis-
\n\tconstruction  of what did not appear to us to be  reasonably
\n\topen to more than one interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Learned Counsel for the respondents, rather desparately,
\n\tattempted to argue that, as there was no procedure or  prin-
\n\tciple  laid  down at all for award of  compensation  in\t the
\n\tBangalore Act, we  should invoke the aid of Equity and\thold
\n\tthat  the market value should  be determined with  reference
\n\tto the date of notification under section 18 of the Act.  We
\n\tdo not think that such an argument could be advanced at\t all
\n\tin the face of the provisions of section 27(2) which clearly
\n\tequate a notification under section 18 of the Bangalore\t Act
\n\twith  the  notification under section 6 of  the\t Acquisition
\n\tAct.   We know the maxim that “equity follows the law”.\t  We
\n\thave not heard\tof  the proposition that some transcendental
\n\tEquity\tshould be so used as to defeat or amend the’ law  as
\n\tit  stands.   Maitland\tsaid long ago that  equity  came  to
\n\tsupplement  and not to supplant the law.  We think that,  if
\n\twe were to aquate a notification under section 18 with\t the
\n\tnotification  under  section 6 of the Act  for\tpurposes  of
\n\tdetermining  the  market value, which is to be\tawarded,  we
\n\twould  be doing nothing short-of supplanting at\t least\t‘the
\n\tlaw as found clearly laid  own\tin section 27 of the  Banga-
\n\tlore  Act read with section 23 of the Acquisition  Act.\t  We
\n\tthink  that the Division Bench of’ the Karnataka High  Court
\n\thad  seriously\tmisdirected itself in not giving  effect  to
\n\tobvious\t meanings of the plain words used in statutes  under
\n\tconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Another  contention which found favour in the  Karnataka
\n\tHigh  Court  was that a judgment filed\tby  the\t respondents
\n\tclaimants   m Civil Appeals Nos. 644-650 of 1974, when\tthey
\n\tappealed   to  the Karnataka High Court against the’  orders
\n\tpassed\tby a Civil Judge of Bangalore, on a  reference\tmade
\n\tunder  the Acquisition Act, could be accepted as  additional
\n\tevidence  under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. on the ground\tthat
\n\tit. was relevant, evidence for\tthe  purpose  of determining
\n\tcompensation  of  lands\t which were the\t subject  matter  of
\n\tappeals before the High Court.\tThe reasons given for admit-
\n\tting, at the appellate stage, a judgment of the High  Court,
\n\twhich  had   not been filed before the\tTrial  Court,  were:
\n\tfirstly,  that\tit  was\t not available when the\t proceedings
\n\twere  pending in the Trial Court; and secondly,\t that  lands
\n\tdealt  with by the judgment were adjacent to the  lands\t the
\n\tvalue of which needed determination, and that both sets of
\n\t192<\/span>
\n\tlands were acquired at different stages of what is known  as
\n\tthe  “layout scheme within the limits of Bhinnamangala\tvil-
\n\tlage’.\t The  High Court overruled the\tobjection  that\t the
\n\tjudgment  admitted  as\tadditional evidence  was  not  final
\n\tinasmuch as an appeal against it was pending in this  Court.
\n\tWe  find that the High Court did not consider it,  for\tsome
\n\treason,\t necessary to refer to the provisions of the  Indian
\n\tEvidence  Act which regulate the admissibility of  all\tevi-
\n\tdence  including judgments.  There could be no\tquestion  of
\n\tres judicata in such a case.  The  previous judgment was not
\n\tbetween the  same  parties.  Furthermore,  the appellant was
\n\tnot  given  any\t opportunity of showing\t that  the  judgment
\n\trelated\t to land which was at some distance from  the  lands
\n\twhose value was to be determined or that its site value was,
\n\tfor  some reason, higher.  Even the time at which the  value
\n\tof  the\t other\t land  was determined was not  shown  to  be
\n\tidentical.   Such judgments are not judgments in  rem.\tThey
\n\tare  judgments\tin  personam.  The general provision of\t law
\n\tgoverning admissibility of all judgments,  whether they\t are
\n\tjudgments  in rem or judgments in personam operating as\t res
\n\tjudicata, is section 43 of the\tEvidence  Act  which   reads
\n\tas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “43.  Judgments,\t orders\t or  decrees,  other
\n\t\t than\tthose mentioned in Sections 40, 41  and\t 42,
\n\t\t are irrelevant, unless the existence of such  judg-
\n\t\t ment,\torder or decree, is a fact in issue,  or  is
\n\t\t relevant under some other provision of\t this Act”.
\n\t    It\tis  apparent that section 43 enacts  that  judgments
\n\tother than those falling under sections 40 to. 42 are irrel-
\n\tevant  unless  they fall under some other provision  of\t the
\n\tEvidence Act; and, even if they do fall under any such other
\n\tprovision,  all\t that is relevant, under section 43  of\t the
\n\tEvidence Act, is “the existence” of such judgment, order, or
\n\tdecree provided it “is a fact in issue, or is relevant under
\n\tsome other provision of this Act”.  An obvious instance\t  of
\n\tsuch other provision is a judgment  falling  under   section
\n\t13  of\tthe Evidence Act.  The illustration to section 13 of
\n\tthe  Evidence Act indicates the kind of facts on  which\t the
\n\texistence of judgments may be relevant.
\n\t    In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v.  Lakhamsi
\n\tGhelabhai,(1)  Shelat  J,  held\t that  judgments  not  inter
\n\tpartes, relating to land acquired are not admissible  merely
\n\tbecause the land dealt with n the judgment was situated near
\n\tthe  land  of which the value is to be determined.   It\t was
\n\theld  there  that such judgments would\tfall  neither  under
\n\tsection 11 nor under section 13 of the Evidence Act.   Ques-
\n\ttions relating to value of particular pieces of land  depend
\n\tupon  the  evidence in the particular case  in\twhich  those
\n\tfacts are proved.  They embody findings or opinions relating
\n\tto facts in issue and investigated in different cases.\t The
\n\texistence  of  a judgment would not prove he value  of\tsome
\n\tpiece of land not dealt within at all in the judgment admit-
\n\tted in evidence.  Even slight differences in situation can,
\n\t(1) A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 78.\n<\/p>\n
\t193<\/span><\/p>\n
\tsometimes,  cause considerable differences in value.  We  do
\n\tnot think it necessary to take so restrictive a view of\t the
\n\tprovisions of Sections 11 anti 13 of the Evidence Act as  to
\n\texclude\t such judgments altogether from evidence  even\twhen
\n\tgood  grounds  are made out for their admission.   In  Khaja
\n\tFizuddin  v.  State of Andhra Pradesh,(1) a bench  of  three
\n\tJudges of this Court held such judgments  to  be relevant if
\n\tthey  relate to similarly situated properties  and   contain
\n\tdeterminations\tof  value on dates fairly proximate  to\t the
\n\trelevant date in a case.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t Karnataka  High Court had, however,  not   complied
\n\twith  provisions  of Order 41, Rule 27 of the  C.P.C.  which
\n\trequire\t that an Appellate Courts should be  satisfied\tthat
\n\tthe additional evidence is required to enable them either to
\n\tpronounce judgment or  for  any other substantial cause.  It
\n\thad  recorded no reasons to show that it had considered\t the
\n\trequirements of Rule 27, Order 41,  of\tthe C.P.C. we are of
\n\topinion\t that, the High Court should have recorded its\trea-
\n\tsons to show why it found the admission of such evidence  to
\n\tbe  necessary for some substantial reason.  And if it  found
\n\tit  necessary to admit it, an opportunity should  have\tbeen
\n\tgiven  to the appellant to rebut any inference arising\tfrom
\n\tits existence by  leading  other evidence.
\n\t    The result is that we allow these appeals and set  aside
\n\tthe  judgment  and  order of the Karnataka  High  Court\t and
\n\tdirect it to decide the cases afresh on evidence on  record,
\n\tso as to determine the market value of the land acquired  on
\n\tthe  date  of  the  notification  under section\t 16  of\t the
\n\tBangalore  Act.\t  It will also decide the   question,  after
\n\taffording  parties opportunities  to  lead  necessary\tevi-
\n\tdence,\twhether the judgment, sought to be offered as  addi-
\n\ttional evidence, could be admitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe parties will bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tV.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\n\tallowed.\n<\/pre>\n
\t(1) C.A. No. 176 of 1962, decided on 10-4-1963.\n<\/p>\n
\t194<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Land Acquisition Officer, City … vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2403, 1977 SCR (1) 178 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENTTRUST BOARD Vs. RESPONDENT: H. NARAYANAIAH ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/08\/1976 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLand Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Land Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-20T02:22:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Land Acquisition Officer, City … vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T02:22:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976\"},\"wordCount\":6345,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976\",\"name\":\"Land Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T02:22:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Land Acquisition Officer, City … vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Land Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Land Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-20T02:22:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"40 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Land Acquisition Officer, City … vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976","datePublished":"1976-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T02:22:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976"},"wordCount":6345,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976","name":"Land Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T02:22:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/land-acquisition-officer-city-vs-h-narayanaiah-etc-etc-on-16-august-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Land Acquisition Officer, City … vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15908","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15908"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15908\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}