Summarize the following court judgment. Appeals Nos. 644 650/74. (Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 21 6 1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Misc. First Appeal Nos. 77	 444 450/70 respectively). K. Sen	 V.M. Tarkunde	 H.B. Datar and R.B. Datar for the appellant. section Rangaraj	 M. Qamaruddin	 P.N. Purl	 S.K. Mehta for Mr. K.R. Naggrain	 for respondent in CA. No. 644/74. A.R. Somnath Iyer	 section Laxminarasu	 for respondents in CA. Nos. 645 650/74. 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 27(2) 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 4(2) 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 o.f 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 50(2) 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 Officer(1)	 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 4(1) 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) A.I.R. 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 4(2) 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 4(1) 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 4(1) of the Acquisition Act. And	 we think that to equate a resolution under section 14 of the Act with a notification under section 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 23(1) 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 4(1 ) 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 4(2) of the Acquisition Act without a notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act	 the Board of Trustees could do those very things with out any notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act. Even if we could equate the resolution under section 14 of the Bangalore Act with a notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act	 we could not dispense with the requirements of section 23(1) 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 4(1) 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 27(2) 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 4(1) of the Act. To hold that a notification under section 18 of the Bangalore Act could be equated with section 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 4(1) of the Acquisition Act itself should precede any action under section 14 of the Act which is to be equated with section 4(2) 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 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 4(1) of the Acquisition Act and	 as we also find that the provisions of section 16 of the Bangalore Act and section 4(1) 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 4(1 ) 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 4(1) of the Acquisition Act in addition to complying with section 16 of the Bangalore Act. The general provisions of section 4(1) 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) M.L.J.p.239 1414 1003SCI/76 186 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 (2)or 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 served	dissents 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 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 17(2)(e)	 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 4(2) 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 4(2) 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 27(1) of the Bangalore Act (i.e. powers in section 4(2) 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 23(1) 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 (e.g. section 16)corresponding with that found in the Acqui sition Act (e.g. section 4(1). These words bring in or make applicable	 so far as this is reasonably possible	 general provisions such as section 23(1) 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 27(2) 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 C.P.C. 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 Ghelabhai	(1) 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 Pradesh	(1) 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 C.P.C. 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 C.P.C. 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. V.P.S. Appeal allowed. (1) C.A. No. 176 of 1962	 decided on 10 4 1963.

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. 4(1)	 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 27(1) 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 4(2) of the Acquisition Act; and under section 27(2) 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 23(1) 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 41(1)	 would not apply	 because	 (a) No. principle o.r 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 23(1) 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 late.r 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 4(1 ) 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] (1)(a) 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 4(1) 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 the.re.fore 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 0.41 r. 27	 C.P.C. 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. (3)(a) 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 27(2) and (2); are: (i) that the Board of Trustees could do the: things provided for in section 4.(2) of the Acquisition: Act without a notification under section 4(1); 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 value.[189 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 prescribe.d 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 s.18	 Bangalore Act	 could be equated with a notification under section 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 4(1) 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 27(1) of the Bangalore Act	 corresponding to those in section 4(2) of the Acquisition Act	 only after the notification under section 16 of the Bangalore Act. [185 B.C] M. Manicklal vs The State of Mysore approved.