LexLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD versus H. NARAYANAIAH ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
178 A LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CITY IMPROVEMENT ·C D :E TRUST BOARD v. H. NARA Y.ANAIAH ETC. ETC. August 16, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Lalld acquisition-City of Bangaldre Improvement Ac:, 1945, ss. 16, 18 and 27-Notification u/lder ss. 16 and 18 011 different dates-Date for determin- ing market value for awarding compellsation for acquisiti01i of land. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) s. 43 and Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) 0. 41, 27-Admission of Judgme/lfs in land acquisition proceedings as atldi- tional evidence. The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, is coilcerned with the improvement and future expansion of the city, and for the appointment of a Board of Trustees with special powers to carry out that purpose. As an inci- dent of such improvement and expansion, it provides for acquisition of !and also. Section 16 of the Act provides for the publication of a notice so that any representations which objectors may make may be considered by the Board itself under s. 17. The object of the two sections is to provide for the notification similar to that uhder s. 4(1), My;ore Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and for hearing of objections as under s. SA, of that Act. Section 18 of the Bangalore Act provides for the publication in the Gazette of the declaration that the land is acquired for a public; purpose. Section 27 provides that acqui- sitions otherwise than by agreement, shall be regulated by the provision, of the Acquisition Act in so far as they are applicable and by certai.n further provi- sions in the• section .. Section 27 (1) provides that upon the passing of a ·resolu.- tion by the Board that an improvement scheme uhder s. 14 is nece,sary in .respect of any locality, it shall be lawful for any person, autl1orised by the Board to do all s·uch acts in respect of the land as it would be lawful for an officer duly authorised by the Government under s. 4(2) of the Acquisition Act; and under s. 27(2) the publication of a declaration under s. 18 shalt be deemed to be the publication of a declaration under s. 6, Acquisition Act. Jn the present case, the notification• under s. 16 of the Bangalore Act were issued in 1960 and the notifications uhder s. !8 were published in 1967. On the question as to which date was to be taken for the determination of the market value for the purpose of awarding compensation, the High Court held that the date of notification under s. 18 is the relevant d;ite. Ihe High. Court held that decision of Full Bench of the High Court in Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquis<ition Officer (AIR 1972 Mysore 193) covered the question; and it also relied on another decision of the Court, determining compensation with respect of the acquisition of certain other lands, as relevaht evidence for the purpose of determining compensation in the instant case. In appeal to this Court the respondent also supported the judgment of the High Court on the grouhd that 9. 23 ( 1) of the Acquisition Act which provides that the determina- tion of the market value should be as on the date of the. publicatloh of a noti- fication under s. 41(1), would not apply, because, (a) no principle1 or procedure governing award of compensation is specified in the Ban11:alore Act, (b) the words "so far as applicable", used ih s. 27, are equivalent to "in sc far as thev are specifically mentioned"; and s. 23 ( 1) i• not so specifically mentioned; and. ( c) since no procedure or principle is laid down for the award of compensation in the Bangalore Act, it would be equitable to hold that the market value should be determined with reference to the later date of the notification under s. 18 of the Act. Allowing the appeal, HELD : The matter should be remanded to the High Court for determina- tion of the market value of the' land as on the date of the notification under LAND ACQUISITION OFFICRR V. H. NARAYANAIAH (Beg, J.) 17.9 s. 16 of the Bangalore Avt, which corresponds to the notification under s. 4( l) of the Acquisition Act, after affording opportunities to the partie~ whether the judgment sought to be offered as additional evidence could be so admitted shall be decided. [193 E-F] ( l )(a) The Full Bench of the High Court, while interpreting the City of Mysore Improvement ht, 1903, observed that the Acquisition Act had been amended in 1927 so as to make compensation payable as on th.e date of the notification under s. 4( 1) of that Act in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.