MARIYAPPA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 988 · Decided: 19-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MARIYAPPA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 19, 1998 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972/Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 3(1), 3(4) & 4/Section 11-A-Notijication dt. 
19.12.1983-Acquisition of land-No award passed even after expiry of 
C stipulated period of two years-Validity of-Held : Entire proceedings 
Including the notifications are declared as lapsed. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 11-A-Applicability of in respect 
of Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972. 
D 
A notification dt. 19.12.83 under sec. 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition 
of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972 was published in the Gazette for 
acquisition of certain lands. Notification under sec. 3(4) of the Act was also 
published in the Gazette. The appellants-tenants of the land to be acquired, 
had been conferred occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. The appellants 
E filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the Acquisition Order 
and stay of dispossession was granted to them. Subsequently the said writ 
petitions were dismissed. Appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the 
High Court. The case of the appellants was that Sec. 11-A of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) was a1>plicable to the proceedings for 
land acquisition under the Karnataka Act, 1972 and as no award has been 
F passed even after expiry of two years period specified in Section 11-A, the 
proceedings must be deemed to have been lapsed. The Division Bench of the 
High Court relying upon its earlier judgment in Jvswarappa & Another* 
held that sec. 11-A of the Central Act could not be read into the Kamataka 
Act, 1972 even if the award was not passed within the period of 2 years as 
G stipulated in sec. 11-A. Hence the present appeal. 
The contentions of the appellants inter alia was foat sec. 5 of the 
Kamataka Act, 1972 states that the Central Act, 1894 shall mutatis mutandis, 
apply in respect of enquiry, award, reference to Tribunal, the apportionment 
of amount and the payment of amount of compensation and therefore, the 
H subsequent amendments in 1984 to the Central Act, 1894 have to be read 
988 
. ,, 
'\ 
MARIYAPPA v. STA TE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 
989 
into the Karnataka Act, 1972. 
A 
_ _., 
The contentions of the respondents were that the Karnataka Act being 
an Act of 1972, the applicability of the 11rovisions of the Central Act, 1894 
as modified by the Land Acquisition Act, 1961 is restricted to what was 
specifically stated in the body of section 5 of the Karnataka Act, 1972 and, 
~ 
therefore, amendments to the Central Act of 1894 subsequent to 1961, such B 
'r 
as Section 11-A introduced in 1984 are not attracted to the Karnataka Act, 
1972. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 11-A as introduced by the Amendment in 1984 to c 
the Land Acqui~ition Act, 1894 should be read into the Karnataka Acquisition 
of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972. (1006-C] 
1.2. The provisions of section 11-A are violated and it is declared that 
_. 
the entire proceedings including notifications under Section 3(1) and 3(4) D 
.. 
of the Karnataka Act, 1972 have lapsed. (1006-B] 
1.3. The amendments made in 1984 to the Central Act, 1894 including 
Section 11-A have to be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972 so far as enquiry, 
award, reference to Court, apportionment of amount and payment of 
compensation in respect of Land acquired under the Act. This is because 
firstly there being no detailed machinery whatsoever in Karnataka Act, E 
1972, that Act cannot be treated as a self contained or complete Code. 
Seconclly the Kamataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 are supplemental 
to each other for unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the 
latter cannot function. Lastly these Acts are in pari materia because the 
' 
Kamataka Act, 1972 does not deal with any other subject hut deals with the F 
... 
same ~uhject of Land acquisitions which othenvisc would have fallen within 
the ambit of the Central Act, 1894. [Hl05-F-H; 1006-A] 
1.4. The Karnataka Act, 1972 has only seven Sections and it does not 
contain any dependent machinery or provisions for the purpose of inquiry, G 
reference, award and payment of compensation or apportionment The Central 
,h. 
Act, 1894 alone is to apply for the above purposes. [1005-D] 
State of MP. v. M V Narasimhan, [1975] 2 SCC 377; Western Coalfie

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.