Appeal No 2539 of 1972
From the Judgment and Order dated 10 3 1972 of the Mysore High Court in Misc
First Appeal No 23470 HS Parihar for 1
N Shroff for the Appellant
KR Nagaraja and PN Puri 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 us follows the decision of a Full Bench of that Court in Venkatamma vs Special Land Acquisition officer
1 The FuII Bench had held that the date for the determination of compensation under the provi sions of section 231 of the Land Acquisition Act which was to
be applied to acquisitions under the City of Mysore Improvement Act 3 of 1903 hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Act  was the date of notification under section 18 of the Act corresponding to section 6 of the Acquisition Act
Recently we have had to deal with a case in which the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945 corresponding substantially with those of the Act now before us were interpreted by us
The provisions of Sections 14 16 and 18 of the Mysore Act of 1903 as well as the Banga lore Act of 1945 are identical
And the provisions of section 23 of the Mysore Act are identical with those Sec tion 27 of the Bangalore Act
Therefore a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered itself bound by the Full Bench decision of the Mysore High Court subsequentiy the Karnataka High Court on the provisions of the Mysore Act of 1903 even in interpreting the Bangalore Act of 1945
But this Court held in the Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board vs
H Narayanaiah etc
2 that the Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court holding that the market value for the purposes of compensa tion must be determined with reference to the date of notification under section 18 of the Bangalore Act was erroneous
It therefore allowed the appeals from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court which had purported to follow the Full Bench decision of the Mysore Act of 1903
The main argument in the appeal before us is that this Court had observed in Narayanaiah s case supra that the Full Bench decision related to an interpretation of provi sions of an Act as it stood in 1 AIR 2  551 1903 when the date of market value to be determined for purposes of compensation was the date of notification under section 6 of the Acquisition Act
That date was subse quently changed by the Mysore Act 1 of 1927 to that of publication and notification under Section 41 of the Acquisition Act
It is true that this Court did observe that this difference was vital
In doing so it had ac cepted the
argument put forward on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer
But it had not decided what was the real meaning of provisions of Section 23 of the Mysore Act which correspond with section 27 of the Bangalore Act
Section 23 of the Mysore Act now before us reads as follows 23
The acquisition 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 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 Government to act under section 42 of the Land Acquisition Act and for his servants and workmen to do thereunder and the provision contained in section 5 of the said Act shall likewise be ap plicable 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 Land Acquisi tion Act
3 For the purposes of section 502 of the Land Acquisition Act the Board shall be deemed to be local authority concerned
4 After the land vests in the Government under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 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 acquisition transfer the land to the Board and the land shall thereupon vest in the Board
The reasoning of the Full Bench of the
Mysore High Court which did not appeal to this Court in Narayanaiah s case supra was that since a declaration under section 18 of the Act was equated with section 6 of the Acquisition Act proceedings under section 41 of the Acquisition Act could only be equated with the stage of a resolution 552 under section 141 of the Act which was anterior to the declaration under section 18 of the Mysore Act
section 16 of the Act is also anterior to Section 18
This Court found that although the procedure laid down in section 16 of the Bangalore Act which corresponds exactly with section 16 of the Mysore Act now before us is more elaborate than the procedure under section 41 of the Acquisition Act yet the purpose of section 16 of the Bangalore Act was the same as that of section 4 1 of the Acquisition Act we think that this reasoning applies equally to the provisions of the Mysore Act
It is true that it can be more plausibly argued with regard to the provisions of Mysore Act of 1903 that the market value for acquisition under this Act should be deter mined with reference to the Acquisition Act as it stood in 1903
After carefully considering this point of view we think that such a departure from the generally accepted procedure which regulates acquisition and compensation for it under similar Acts in the State of Mysore as well as under Land Acquisition Act today has to be justified by something more explicit express and substantial than the mere date of enactment of the Mysore Act
If Section 231 of the Acquisition Act lays down as we think it does the only procedure for award of compensation it has to be followed as it exist at the time of acquisition proceedings
No one has a vested right in a particular procedure
It is a fair interpretation of section 23 of the Mysore Act of 1903 to hold that it means that whatever may be the proce dure there with regard to matters regulating compensation under the Acquisition Act
at the time of acquisition proceedings will apply to acquisition under the Mysore Act
If the procedure that the market value should be deter mined with reference to section 6 of the Acquisition Act had been replaced by an amendment of 1927
by the provision that the relevant date will be the date of notification under section 41 of the Acquisition Act we will really have to determine what is the equivalent in the Mysore Act of proceedings under section 41 of the Acquisition Act
The provision relating to determination of compensation with reference to Section 6 having disappeared was no longer available to be applied at all on the date of the acquisi tion with which we are now concerned
Hence
to argue that the equivalent of section 6 notification trader the Acquisi tion Act should govern even proceedings commenced after the amendment would be to apply what had ceased to exist long before the proceeding commenced
The amendment of section 231 of the Acquisition Act meant a legally valid substitu tion of the notification under section 41 for the one under section 6 of the Acquisition Act
This implied an effective repeal and replacement
In such a situa tion according to section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act only proceedings commenced before the repeal would be governed by the unamended procedure
We think that the language of section 23 of the Mysore Act applies the provisions of the Acquisition Act to acquisitions under the Mysore Act except to the extent of express deviation by the Mysore Act from the general procedure in the Acquisition Act as amended from time to time
The procedure contained in the Acquisition Act for the time being did 553 need to be expressly applied once again after each amendment of the Acquisition Act as the Mysore High Court seems to have opined
It was enough to lay down as section 23 of the Mysore Act does that the general procedure found in the Acquisition Act will apply except to the extent it was inapplicable
This means that amendments of the procedure in the Acquisition Act will apply if it is capable of appli cation
In the case before us the preliminary notification under section 16 of the Mysore Act of 1903 was published on 27th May 1965
This we equate with notification under section 41 of the Acquisition Act for reasons we have already given in Narayanaiah s case supra
At that time there was no date other than the date of the notification under section 41 of the Acquisition Act prescribed for ascertainment of the market value as a matter of correct procedure for determining compensation
The procedure under the unamended Act may have had relevance for acquisition proceedings begun before the amendment of the Acquisition Act in 1927 when it really existed
But we think that it is a fair interpretation of the provisions of Section 23 of the Mysore Act to hold that compensation for acquisitions will be general provisions of the Acquisition Act as they exist on the date of a particular acquisition proceeding except to the extent to which a different procedure is expressly laid down in the Mysore Act
On the view we take the market value of the property acquired had to be deter mined with reference to the date of notification under Section 16 of the Mysore Act
Consequently we set aside the judgment and order of the Mysore High Court
We remand the case to the High Court for determination of the market value and disposal of the case in accordance with the law as declared by us
The parties will bear their own costs throughout
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Section 231 of the Land Acquisition Act originally provided that the date for Section 23 1 of the market value for purpose of compensation is the date of the notification under section 6
In 1927 section 231 was amended making the date of section 41 notification as the relevant date
With respect to certain acquisitions under the City of Mysore Improvement Act 1903
Mysore Act the notifica tion under section 16 of the Act was published in May 1965 and the notification under section 18 which corresponds to section 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 provisions of section 231 Acquisition Act the High Court followed the Full Bench decision of that court in Venkatamma vs Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR and held that the date of section 18 notification is the relevant date on the ground that section 231 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 date
Allowing the appeal to this Court and remanding the case to the High Court for determination of the market value as on the date of section 16 notification
HELD 1 Section 23 Mysore Act applied the provisions of the Acquisition 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 section 23 Mysore Act to hold that it means that whatever may be procedure with regard to matters regulating compensation under the Acquisition Act at the time of acquisition proceedings will apply to acqui sitions under the Mysore Act
The procedure contained in the Acquisation Act for the time being need not be expressly applied once again after each amendment 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 particular procedure
552 A F Therefore section 231 of the Acquisition Act which lays down the procedure for awarding compensation has to be followed as it exists at the time of requisition proceed ings
552H 553A 2 the 927 amendment of section 231 Acquisition Act meant a legally valid substitution of the notification under section 41 for the one under section 6 of the Acquisition Act that is an effective repeal and replacement
In such a situation according to section 6 Mysore General Clauses Act only proceedings commenced before the repeat would be governed by the unamended procedure
552 F G 3 The date of notification under section 41 of the Acquisition Act would thus be the relevant date for determining market value
Although the procedure laid down in section 16 Mysore Act is more elaborate than the proce dure under section 41 Acquisition Act the purpose of section 16 Mysore Act is the same as that of section 41 Acquisition Act
Therefore the date of s 16 notification would be the rele vant date
553 B F 550 Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board vs
H Narayanaiah etc etc
  followed
Venkatamma vs Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR overruled