Case: The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kiadb, Mysore  Vs. Anasuya Bai (D) By Lrs.

of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and the same contentions were raised, namely, that the acquisition notification gets invalidated for not making an award within a period of two years from the date of notification. Repelling the said contention, the learned Judges held that once the land is vested in the Government, the provisions of Section 11-A are not attracted and the acquisition proceedings will not lapse. (Pratap case[(1996) 3 SCC 1] , SCC para 12 at p. 8 of the Report.)32. In Munithimmaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2002(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 527 : [(2002) 4 SCC 326] this Court held that the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of the said Act do not apply to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (the BDA Act). In SCC para 15 at p. 335 of the Report this Court made a distinction between the purposes of the two enactments and held that all the provisions of the said Act do not apply to the BDA Act. Subsequently, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority [(2011) 3 SCC 139 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662 : (2011) 1 Scale 533 ] , held that Section 11-A of the said Act does not apply to acquisition under the BDA Act.33. The same principle is attracted to the present case also. Here also on a comparison between the provisions of the said Act and the KIAD Act, we find that those two Acts were enacted to achieve substantially different purposes. Insofar as the KIAD Act is concerned, from its Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is clear that the same was enacted to achieve the following purposes:"It is considered necessary to make provision for the orderly establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in the State. To achieve this object, it is proposed to specify suitable areas for industrial development and establish a board to develop such areas and make available lands therein for establishment of industries."34. The KIAD Act is of course a self-contained code. The said Act is primarily a law regulating acquisition of land for public purpose and for payment of compensation. Acquisition of land under the said Act is not concerned solely with the purpose of planned development of any city. It has to cater to different situations which come within the expanded horizon of public purpose. Recently the Constitution Bench of this Court in Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, 2011(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 406 : [(2011) 3 SCC 1 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 578 : (2011) 1 Scale 223 ] held that Section 11-A of the said Act does not apply to acquisition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.35. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka, 1998(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 598 : [(1998) 3 SCC 276] . The said decision was cited for the purpose of contending that Section 11-A is applicable to an acquisition under the KIAD Act. In Mariyappa [(1998) 3 SCC 276] before coming to hold that provision of Section 11-A of the Central Act applies to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter "the 1972 Act"), this Court held that the 1972 Act is not a self-contained code. The Court also held that the 1972 Act and the Central Act are supplemental to each other to the extent that unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. The Court further held that both the Acts, namely, the 1972 Act and the Central Act deal with the same subject. But in the instant case the KIAD Act is a self-contained code and the Central Act is not supplemental to it. Therefore, the ratio in Mariyappa [(1998) 3 SCC 276] is not attracted to the facts of the present case.36. Following the aforesaid well-settled principles, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that acquisition under the KIAD Act lapsed for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11-A of the said Act. For the reasons aforesaid all the contentions of the appellant, being without any substance, fail and the appeal is dismissed."26. Having regard to the aforesaid raison detre for non-application of the Old LA Act, on the parity of reasoning, provision of Section 24(2) of the New LA Act making Section 11A of the Old LA Act would, obviously, be not applicable. We would like to refer to the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan, (1975) 2 SCC 377 in this behalf where following proposition is laid down:"Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases:(a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other;(b) where the two Acts are in pari materia;(c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and(d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act."27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was correct in law which should not have been interfered with by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. It is significant to state that insofar as direction of the Single Judge is concerned that was accepted by the appellants herein, as the appellants did not challenge the same. It is the respondents which had filed the intra court appeal. Thus, appellants by their aforesaid conduct, are satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge in directing them to determine the compensation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]21. From the issuance of notice alone to the respondents under Section 29 of KIAD Act, it cannot be said that respondents had agreed to the compensation. It may be noted that large chunk of land was acquired and there were other land owners as well, despite the respondents. No doubt, proceedings dated 9th September, 2005 indicate that consent agreement is arrived at fixing the compensation at Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre. However, the moot question is as to whether respondents are also consenting parties. The learned Single Judge of the High Court returned a categorical finding that respondents never gave any such consent. For this purpose, reference was made to Rule 10(b) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965 which states the format in which the said mutual agreement is to be arrived at i.e. Form D. Rule 10(b) states the form of agreement to be executed under sub-section (2) of Section 11 shall be in Form D. No such document is produced by the appellants. Moreover, the appellants also could not show that notice dated 23rd August, 2005 was, in fact, served on the respondents. Therefore, the respondents had not consented to the amount of compensation that was determined in the minutes dated 9th September, 2005. This finding is upheld by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment as well. There is no reason to disagree with this finding.The New Act does not say whether the Act is applicable to the land acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act 1894. What Section 24 says that if the award is not passed U/s 11 of the Act and the compensation is not paid within 5 years or more prior to new act, if the physical possession of the land is taken or not especially the compensation is not paid or deposited in Court such proceedings deem to have been lapsed. In th instant case, it is not case of the respondent that award is not required to be passed under the provisions of LA Act. When the award is required to be passed under LA Act, the respondents cannot contend that the provisions of New Act cannot be made applicable on account of non payment of compensation within a period of five years.This approach of the High Court, we find, to be totally erroneous. In the first instance, matter is not properly appreciated by ignoring the important aspects mentioned in para 24 above. Secondly, effect of non-applicability of Section 11A of the Old LA Act is not rightly understood. The High Court was not oblivious of the judgment of this Court in M. Nagabhushanas case which is referred by it in the aforesaid discussion itself. This judgment categorically holds that once the proceedings are initiated under the KIAD Act, Section 11A of the Old LA Act would not be applicable. Such an opinion of the Court is based on the followingThe appellant has not challenged the validity of the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, on a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, it is clear that on the publication of the Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act i.e. from 30-3-2004, the land in question vested in the State free from all encumbrances by operation of Section 28(5) of the KIAD Act, whereas the land acquired under the said Act vests only under Section 16 thereof, which runs as under:"16.Power to take possession.-When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka, 1998(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 598 : [(1998) 3 SCC 276]   . The said decision was cited for the purpose of contending that Section 11-A is applicable to an acquisition under the KIAD Act. In Mariyappa [(1998) 3 SCC 276]   before coming to hold that provision of Section 11-A of the Central Act applies to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter "the 1972 Act"), this Court held that the 1972 Act is not a self-contained code. The Court also held that the 1972 Act and the Central Act are supplemental to each other to the extent that unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. The Court further held that both the Acts, namely, the 1972 Act and the Central Act deal with the same subject. But in the instant case the KIAD Act is a self-contained code and the Central Act is not supplemental to it. Therefore, the ratio in Mariyappa [(1998) 3 SCC 276]   is not attracted to the facts of the present case.36. Following the aforesaid well-settled principles, this Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that acquisition under the KIAD Act lapsed for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11-A of the said Act. For the reasons aforesaid all the contentions of the appellant, being without any substance, fail and the appeal is dismissed.Having regard to the aforesaid raison detre for non-application of the Old LA Act, on the parity of reasoning, provision of Section 24(2) of the New LA Act making Section 11A of the Old LA Act would, obviously, be not applicable. We would like to refer to the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan, (1975) 2 SCC 377     in this behalf where following proposition is laida subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act, then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases:(a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other;(b) where the two Acts are in pari materia;(c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and(d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act.We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was correct in law which should not have been interfered with by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. It is significant to state that insofar as direction of the Single Judge is concerned that was accepted by the appellants herein, as the appellants did not challenge the same. It is the respondents which had filed the intra court appeal. Thus, appellants by their aforesaid conduct, are satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge in directing them to determine the