LexSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD, MYSORE versus P. GOVINDAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
549
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENT
A
TRUST BOARD, MYSORE
v.
P. GOVINDAN
September 10, 197 6
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N,. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903, Ss. 16, 18 and 23(1)-Relevant date
for determining market value for purposes of compensation, what is.
Section 23 ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act originally provided that the date
for determining the market value for purpose of compensation is. the date of the
notification under s. 6. In 1927, s. 23(1) was amended makmg the date of
s. 4(1) notification as the relevant date.
With respect to certain acquisitions under the City of Mysore Improve!11ent
Act, 1903, (Mysore Act) the notification under s. 16 of the Act was published
B
c
in May 1965 and the notification under s. 18, which corresponds to s. 6 of the
Acquisition Act, was published some time later. On the question of the date for
the determination of market value for purposes of compensation under the pro-
visions of s. 23 ( 1), Acquisition Act, the High Court followed the Full Bench
D
decision of that court in Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR
1972 Mysore 193) and held that the date of s. 18-notification is the relevant
date, on the ground that s. 23(1), Acquisition Act, as it stood in 1903 should
be applied, since its amendment in 1927, has not ·been made specially applicable
to acquisitions after that d.ate.
Allowing the appear to this Court and remanding the case to the High Court
for determination of the market value as on the date of s. 16-notification.
E
HELD : ( 1) Section 23, Mysore Act, applied the provisions of the Acquisi-
tion Act to acquisitions under the Mysore Act, except to the extent of any express
deviation by the Mysore Act from the general procedure in the Acquisition Act.
It is a fair interpretation of s. 23, Mysore Act, to hold that it means that, what-
ever. may be procedure, with regard to matters regulating compensation under
the Acquisition Act, at the time of acquisition proceedings, will apply to acquisi-
tions under the Mysore Act. The procedure, contained in the Acquisition Act
for the time being, need not be expressly applied once again after each amend-
F
ment of the Acquisition Act, and such procedure in the Acquisition Act would
apply if it is capable of application, since no one has a vested right in a parti-
cular vroccdure. (552 A-FJ
Therefore, s. 23 (1) of the Acquisition Act, which lays down the procedure
for awarding compensation, has to be followed as it exists at the time of the
acquisition proceedings.
[552H-553A]
(2) The 927-amendment of s. 23(1),
Acquisition Act,
meant a
lega.Uy
valid substitution of the notification under s. 4 ( 1) for the one under s. 6 of the
Acquisition Act, that is, an effective repeal and replacement. In such a situation,
according to s. 6, Mysore General Clauses Act, only proceedings commenced
before the repeal would be governed by the unamended procedure. (552 F-G]
(3) The date of notification under s. 4(1) of the Acquisition Act wouJ.d
thus be the relevant date, for determining market value. Although the procedure
laid down in s. 16, Mysore Act, is more elaborate than the procedure under
s. 4 (1), Acquisition Act, the purpose of s. 16, Mysore Act is the same as that
of s. 4(1) Acquisition Act. Therefore, the date of s. 16_notification would be
the relevant date. [553 B-F]
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Tmst Board v. H. Naravanaiah
etc., etc. [1977] 1 S.C.R. 178, followed.
·
Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1972 Mysore 193)
overruled.
.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2539 of 1972.
B ·
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-3-1972 of the Mysore
High Court in Misc. First Appeal No. 234/70)
c
D
E
F
G
H
H. S. Parihar for I. N. Shroff, for the Appellant.
K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Pu;i for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J.
The judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High
Court under appeal before us after certification of the case as fit for an
appeal to m, follows the decision of a Full Bench of that Cou>:t in
Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquisition officer.(')
The Full Bench
had held that the date for the determination of compensation under
the provisions of section 23 ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which
was to be applied to acquisitions under the City of MyExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.