Appeals Nos 644 65074
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 45070 respectively
K Sen VM Tarkunde HB Datar and RB Datar for the appellant
section Rangaraj M Qamaruddin PN Purl SK Mehta for Mr KR Naggrain for respondent in CA
No 64474
AR Somnath Iyer section Laxminarasu for respondents in CA
Nos 645 65074
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
Civil Appeals Nos
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 272 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 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 42 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 of 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 502 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 vs Special Land Acquisition Officer1 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 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 41 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 AIR 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
section 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 42 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 41 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 41 of the Acquisition Act
And we think that to equate a resolution under section 14 of the Act with a notification under section 41 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 section 41 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 231 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 41  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 42 of the Acquisition Act without a notification under section 41 of the Acquisition Act the Board of Trustees could do those very things with out any notification under section 41 of the Acquisition Act
Even if we could equate the resolution under section 14 of the Bangalore Act with a notification under section 41 of the Acquisition Act we could not dispense with the requirements of section 231 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 41 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 272 seems designed by way of abundant caution to clarify the mean 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 41 of the Act
To hold that a notification under section 18 of the Bangalore Act could be equated with section 41 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 41 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 41 of the Acquisition Act itself should precede any action under section 14 of the Act which is to be equated with section 42 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 41 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 41 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 vs 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 41 of the Acquisition Act and as we also find that the provisions of section 16 of the Bangalore Act and section 41 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 41  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 41 of the Acquisition Act in addition to complying with section 16 of the Bangalore Act
The general provisions of section 41 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 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 MLJp239 1414 1003SCI76 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 2or 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
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 serveddissents 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 provides even more elaborately for the publication of the initial notice which is given in section 41 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 41 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 41 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 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 172e 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 42 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 42 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 271 of the Bangalore Act ie powers in section 42 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 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 231 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 eg section 16corresponding with that found in the Acqui sition Act eg section 41
These words bring in or make applicable so far as this is reasonably possible general provisions such as section 231 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 272 which clearly equate a notification under section 18 of the Bangalore Act with the notification under section 6 of the Acquisition 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 CPC 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 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 vs Lakhamsi Ghelabhai1 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 1 193 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 vs State of Andhra Pradesh1 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 CPC 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 CPC 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
VPS Appeal allowed
1 CA No 176 of 1962 decided on 10 4 1963


Summary:
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
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 section 17
The object of the two sections is to provide for the notification similar to that under 5
41 Mysore Land Acquisition
1894 and for hearing of objections as under section 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 271 provides that 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 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 section 42 of the Acquisition Act and under section 272 the publication Of a declaration under section 18 shall be deemed to be the publication of a declaration under section 6 Acquisition Act In the present case the notifications under section 16 of the Bangalore Act were issued in 1960 and the notifications under section 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 section 18 is the relevant date
The High
Court held that decision of Full Bench of the High Court in Venkatamma vs Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 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 section 231 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 section 411 would not apply because a No principle or procedure governing award of compensation is specified in the Bangalore Act b the words so far as applicable used in section 27 are equivalent to in so far as they are specifically mentioned and section 231 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 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 determination of the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under 179 section 16 of the Bangalore Act which corresponds to
the notification under section 41  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 1a 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 section 41 of that Act instead of the date of notifica tion under section 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 therefore the date of notifica tion under section 18 would be the relevant date
The delay between the dates of notification under section 16 and under section 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 section 43 Evidence Act judgments other than those falling under sections 40 to 42 Evidence Act are irrele vant unless they fall under some other provisions of the 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 vs 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 041 r 27 CPC 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 vs Lakhamsi Ghelabhai  referred to
3a 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 section 272 and 2 are i that the Board of Trustees could do the things provided for in section 42 of the Acquisition Act without a notification under section 41 and ii the notifica tion under section 18 of the Bangalore Act is equated to the one under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
Therefore even though section 23 of the Acquisition Act is  not specifically mentioned in the Bangalore Act the obvious purpose of the opening words of section 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 section 23 of the Acquisition Act which is the only provision applicable for determining the date of market value189 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 prescribed by the Bangalore Act
They cannot be construed as excluding the application of general provisions such as section 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 section 18 Bangalore Act is equated with a notification under section 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 section 27 of the Bangalore Act read with section 23 of the Acquisition Act
It would also be absurd to hold that a notification under s18 Bangalore Act could be equated with a notification under section 41 Acquisition Act
Therefore the relevant date would be the date of notification under section 16 because the objects achieved by a notification under section 16 Bangalore Act and one under section 4 Acquisition Act are identical
In the Full Bench decision of the High Court it was held
relying on section 23 of the City of Mysore Improvement Act 1903 that section 14 of that Act should be equated to section 41 of the Acquisition Act
But in view of the provisions of r 27 of the Bangalore Act the only result of equating a resolution under section 14 of the Bangalore Act with a notification under section 41 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 section 41 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 section 271 of the Bangalore Act corresponding to those in section 42 of the Acquisition Act only after the notification under section 16 of the Bangalore Act
185 BC M Manicklal vs The State of Mysore approved