Holding

Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1984, is to be read into the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, and the failure to pass an award within two years causes the entire acquisition process, including the notifications, to lapse.

Summary

The appellants, tenants of land acquired under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, challenged the acquisition on the ground that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (introduced by the 1984 amendment) should apply, requiring an award within two years. The High Court had held that Section 11-A could not be read into the Karnataka Act, relying on the doctrine of incorporation. The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Act’s provisions, including Section 11-A, are incorporated mutatis mutandis by Section 5 of the Karnataka Act and whether the exceptions to incorporation apply. It concluded that the Karnataka Act lacks its own machinery for inquiry, award and compensation, is supplemental to the Central Act, and is pari materia with it; therefore Section 11-A must be read into the Karnataka Act. Since the two‑year period elapsed without an award, the acquisition proceedings and the notifications under Sections 3(1) and 3(4) are declared lapsed. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in 1984) to proceedings under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972.
Whether the doctrine of incorporation or referential legislation brings the Central Act into the Karnataka Act, and if the exceptions to incorporation apply.
Whether the lapse of the two‑year period prescribed in Section 11‑A renders the acquisition proceedings void.
Whether the notifications issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Act are to be treated as lapsed.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 11-A, s. 12, s. 24, s. 28, s. 3, s. 34, s. 4, s. 45, s. 46, s. 50, s. 54, s. 6

Subjects

land acquisitionSection 11-AKarnataka Acquisition Act 1972incorporation doctrinemutatis mutandisaward periodstatutory interpretationcompensationlapse of proceedings

Judgment

A MARIYAPPA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 19, 1998

B [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]
. ,,
'\
Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972/Land
Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 3(1), 3(4) & 4/Section 11-A-Notijication dt.
19.12.1983-Acquisition of land-No award passed even after expiry of
C stipulated period of two years-Validity of-Held : Entire proceedings
Including the notifications are declared as lapsed.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 11-A-Applicability of in respect
of Karnataka Acquisition of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972.

D A notification dt. 19.12.83 under sec. 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition
of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972 was published in the Gazette for
acquisition of certain lands. Notification under sec. 3(4) of the Act was also
published in the Gazette. The appellants-tenants of the land to be acquired,
had been conferred occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. The appellants
E filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the Acquisition Order
and stay of dispossession was granted to them. Subsequently the said writ
petitions were dismissed. Appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the
High Court. The case of the appellants was that Sec. 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) was a1>plicable to the proceedings for
land acquisition under the Karnataka Act, 1972 and as no award has been
F passed even after expiry of two years period specified in Section 11-A, the
proceedings must be deemed to have been lapsed. The Division Bench of the
High Court relying upon its earlier judgment in Jvswarappa & Another*
held that sec. 11-A of the Central Act could not be read into the Kamataka
Act, 1972 even if the award was not passed within the period of 2 years as
G stipulated in sec. 11-A. Hence the present appeal.
The contentions of the appellants inter alia was foat sec. 5 of the
Kamataka Act, 1972 states that the Central Act, 1894 shall mutatis mutandis,
apply in respect of enquiry, award, reference to Tribunal, the apportionment
of amount and the payment of amount of compensation and therefore, the
H subsequent amendments in 1984 to the Central Act, 1894 have to be read
988
MARIYAPPA v. STA TE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 989

_ _.,
into the Karnataka Act, 1972. A
The contentions of the respondents were that the Karnataka Act being
an Act of 1972, the applicability of the 11rovisions of the Central Act, 1894
as modified by the Land Acquisition Act, 1961 is restricted to what was
specifically stated in the body of section 5 of the Karnataka Act, 1972 and,
~
therefore, amendments to the Central Act of 1894 subsequent to 1961, such B
'r as Section 11-A introduced in 1984 are not attracted to the Karnataka Act,
1972.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Section 11-A as introduced by the Amendment in 1984 to c
the Land Acqui~ition Act, 1894 should be read into the Karnataka Acquisition
of Land for grant of House Sites Act, 1972. (1006-C]

1.2. The provisions of section 11-A are violated and it is declared that
_. the entire proceedings including notifications under Section 3(1) and 3(4)
D
. of the Karnataka Act, 1972 have lapsed. (1006-B]

1.3. The amendments made in 1984 to the Central Act, 1894 including
Section 11-A have to be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972 so far as enquiry,
award, reference to Court, apportionment of amount and payment of
compensation in respect of Land acquired under the Act. This is because
E
firstly there being no detailed machinery whatsoever in Karnataka Act,
1972, that Act cannot be treated as a self contained or complete Code.
Seconclly the Kamataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 are supplemental
to each other for unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the
latter cannot function. Lastly these Acts are in pari materia because the
Kamataka Act, 1972 does not deal with any other subject hut deals with the F
' ...
same ~uhject of Land acquisitions which othenvisc would have fallen within
the ambit of the Central Act, 1894. [Hl05-F-H; 1006-A]

1.4. The Karnataka Act, 1972 has only seven Sections and it does not
contain any dependent machinery or provisions for the purpose of inquiry,
reference, award and payment of compensation or apportionment The Central G
,h. Act, 1894 alone is to apply for the above purposes. [1005-D]

State ofMP. v. M V Narasimhan, [1975] 2 SCC 377; Western Coalfields
Ltd. v. S.A.D. Authority, [1982] 1 SCC 125; Ujagar Prints v. Union ofIndia,
[1989] 3 SCC 488; State ofKera/a v. Mis. Attesee, [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 733;
H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A Land Acquisition Officer v. If. Naravaniah, [1976) 4 SCC 9 and Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. P. Govindan, [1976) 4 SCC 697, relied on.

Fenkata1111na v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR (1972) Mysore
193, referred to.

B Secretary ofState v. Hindustan Coop. Society Ltd., AIR (1931) PC 148;
,.,
Gauri Shankar v. State of UP, [1994) l SCC 92 and UP Avas Vikas Parishad
'
v. Jainul Islam, (1998) 1 Scale i85, distini,,'llished.

Iswarappa & Another v. Deputy Commissioner & Others, (W.A. No.
1821of1995) dated 10.6.1997 decided by Kamataka High Court, disapproved.
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 972-974 of
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6_.97 oft11e Kamataka High Court
in W.A. No. 8451of1996.
._
D
S.K Kulkarni and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for tlle Appellants.
..,

N. Ganpatlly for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
M. JAGANNADHA RAO. J. Leave granted.

The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of tlle High
Court of Kamataka in Writ Appeal Nos. 8451-53 of 1996 dated 11.6.1997 by
which, tlle High Court dismissed tlle Writ appeals and confirmed the judgment
F of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 23657 to 23659 of 1992 dated
23. 7 .1996. In so doing, t11e High Court followed tlle judgment of a Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1821of1995 dated 10.6.1997 (Iswarappa & Another
v. The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar & Others) whereby tlle judgment in
Writ Petition No. 16302 of 1987 dated 23.3.1995 was affirmed.

G The point concerns the applicability of Section 11-A of tlle Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Central Act, 1894) for the purposes
of tlle Kamataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter
4
called the Kamataka Act, 1972) (Act 18 of 1973). Appellants contend tllat tlle
new Section 11-A is attracted to proceedings for land acquisition under tlle
H Kamataka Act, 1972 while the respondents contend tllat tlle Section 11-A is
MARIYAPPA v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 991
not so attracted. The High Court has held, in the above decisions that Section A
11-A is not attracted to the Karnataka Act, 1972.

Facts:

We shall refer to the facts. The appellants claim to be tenants in regard
to Survey No. 11, Thyamagondalu Village, Nelamangala Taluk, of an extent of B
-
'r
' 10 acres 27 guntas. The said land was endowed to Sri Rama Devaru. Under
Section 5 of the Kamataka Land Refom1s Act, 1961, the Land Tribunal is said
to have conferred occupancy rights on the appellants on 27.8.1975. Some
issues regarding cancellation of the 3rd appellant's right are said to be still
pending. Notification dated 19.12.83 under section 3(1) of the Karnataka Act,
1972 was published in the gazette on 9.2.84. Thereafter notification under C
section 3(4) was published in the gazette on 14.3.85. On 17.6.85, the 3rd
appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9079 of 1985 and stay of dispossession was
granted on I. 7.1985. Appellants 1 & 2 filed Writ Petitions and similar orders
were passed on 8.7.85 and 9.7.1985. On 31.7.90, Writ petition of 3rd appellant
was dismissed. On 1.2.91, Writ petitions of appellants 1 & 2 were also dismissed. D
Thereafter, fresh Writ Petition Nos. 23657 to 59of1992 were filed on I0.1.1992
and stay of dispossession was again granted on 1.2.1992 provided that
possession was not taken. On 23.7.96, the said writ petitions were dismissed
by the learned Single Judge. In the Writ Appeals Nos. 8451-53, the Court
again ordered on 30.9.96 stay of dispossession. On 11.6.1997, the Writ appeals
were dismissed. In case it is to be held that Section 11-A of the Central Act, E
I 894 is to be applied to the Kamataka Act, 1972, even if the period of stay
orders is excluded, the position is that the 2 years period specified in Section
11-A has expired inasmuch as till now no award has been passed. The
appellants are said to be in possession still.

The High Court holds section 11-A not applicable because of doctrine F
'of incorporation' :

The acquisition here is under the Kamataka Act, 1972. The contention
of the appellants in the High Court is that, because of section 5 of the
Karnataka Act adopting the Central Act of 1894 in certain respects, section
I 1-A introduced in the Central Act in 1984 is applicable and the proceedings G
must be deemed to have lapsed.

The Division Bench of the High Court has followed its earlier Judgment
in Jswarappa & Another v. Deputy Commissioner & Others, (W.A. No. 1821
of 1995) dated 10.6.1997 and held that section 11-A of the Central Act, 1894
cannot be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972, even if the award was not H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) l S.C.R.

A passed within 2 years as stipulated in section 11-A. The High Court, after
referring to sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Act, 1972 obseived :

"The provisions of sections 3 and 4 appear to be self-contained so
far as the procedure for acquisition of the land is concerned. The
provisions of the Central Act 1 of 1894 have been made applicable
B apparently for the purpose of detern1ination of the amount payable in ,;
respect of the land acquired under the provisions of the Act and for "(

making reference to the Court."

The High Court referred to section 5 of tlie Karnataka Act of 1972, which
stated that the procedure of the Central Act in respect of inquily and award
c by the Dy. Conuuissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of amount
and the payment of amount, applied. Then the High Court obseived:

"Such an adoption in the legal sense of the term is known as legislation
by referential incorporation .... Perusal of Section 5 however does not show

D
that the Central Act was adopted generally with respect to a subj~ct as genus.
As already held, the said Act was adopted by reference to the statute as it
.. ~

existed at the time of incorporation. The Central Act was adopted, as noted
earlier, upto 1961 and not onwards. Section 11-A of the Act was admittedly
incorporated vide Act No. 69 of 1984, much less after the adoption of the
Central Act No. 1/1984".
E The High Court then obseived that this aspect is covered by a decision
rendered by the same Court under the Karnataka Deveiopment Act, 1976 in
Krishna Moorthy v. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR (1996) Karn.
1258, wherein after referring to the principle of incorporation, it was held that
section 11-A was not attracted to the acquisition under that Act. The High
F Court has applied that judgment to the present case which has arisen under ~

the Karnataka Act, 1972. In Jswarappa 's case, the High Court has also held
that the purposes of the Kamataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 are
different, tliey are meant to deal with different situations and they have
provided different modes of vesting of the acquired land in the State. Under
the Karnataka Act, a house site vests in the State on the publication of the
G notification under Section 3(5) of that Act whereas land acquired under
Central Act, 1894 vests only when the Collector makes an award under ~ ... ~

Section 11 and not otlierwise. The provisions of the special law i.e. Karnataka
Act, 1972 prevail over provisions of a general law on the subject the Central
Act, 1894. On the above reasoning, the High Court in Iswarappa 's case has
H held that the principle of 'incorporation' applies and that section 11-A of the
MARIYAPPA '"STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 993

Central Act, 1894 cannot be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972. The said A
judgment in Iswarappa 's case has been followed in the judgment under
appeal. It is the correctness of the above view that falls for consideration
before us.

Contentions of parties in this Court :
B
- ' 'r ' Learned counsel for the respondents-State contends that the Karnataka
Act being an Act of 1972, the applicability of the provisions of the Central
Act, 1894 as modified by the Land Acquisition (Karna"taka fa.iension and
Amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the karnataka Act, 1961) is restricted
to what is specifically stated in the body of Section 5 of the Karnataka Act, C
1972 and, therefore amendments to the Central Act of 1894 subsequent to
1961, such as Section 11-A introduced in 1984 are not attracted to the Karnataka
Act, 1972. •

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants contends that
Section 11-A introduced into the Central Act, 1894 in 1984 has also to be read D
into the Karnataka Act, 1972 for" the following reasons :
(i) the words 'mutatis mutatis' in section 5 of the Karnataka Act,
1972 have the effect of bringing in subsequent changes of the
Central Act, 1894 into the Karnataka Act, 1972.
(Ii.) the Central Act, 1894 is not merely "incorporated" but it is E
referred to in section 5 as a piece of referential legislation.
(Iii) even assuming that the Central Act was "incorporated' into the
Karnataka Act, 1972, the case on hand would fall within the
following well known exceptions to the said pri11ciple, namely,
(a) Karnataka Act, 1972 does not contain the full machinery for F
being treated as a complete code and has to depend on the
Central Act, 1894 for being functional, so far as (i) inquiry, (ii)
award, (iii) reference (iv) appointment and (v) payment of
compensation, are concerned. The provisions of the 1972 Act
and the Amendments introduced by the 1961 Act are not
G
sufficient to make the 1972 Act a complete code by itself.
(b) Karnataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 are supplemental
to each other.
(c) Both the Acts are pari materia inasmuch as the subject matter
of 1972 Act.could have otherwise come within the ambit of the H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A Central Act, 1894 and the Karnataka Act, 1972 does not deal
with any subject other than acquisition of land.

The Karnataka Act, 1972: contains only seven sections and no ·
machinery for inquiry etc :

B We shall initially refer to the provisions contained in the kamataka Act,
1972. . ,,
It is an Act "to provide for acquisition of lands for grant of house sites .
to weaker sections of the people of the State". The preamble says: "whereas
it is expedient to provide for the acquisition of lands for the public purposes
C of granting house sites to weaker sections of the people in the State and for
purposes connected therewith". Section 2(2) defines 'notification' as the
notification published in the gazette. Section 2(3) defines 'weaker sections'
as belonging to scheduled Castes and Tribes, 'landless labourers' and such
other classes of persons to be notified depending on their economic
D backwardness. Section 2(4) defines 'land' and 'person interested' as having
the same meaning given to those words in the Central Act, 1894 as amended
by the Land Acquisition (Kamataka Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961.

Section 3 deals with acquisition of land' and corresponds to section
4(1) of the Central Act, 1894. Under Section 3(1) ifthe State Government is
E of opinion that any land is required for the purpose of providing house sites
to the weaker sections of people ~ho are house-less, that State Government
may, by notification give notice of its intention to acquire such land. Section
3(2) requires the State Government to serve notice·on the owner or occupier
or persons known to be interested in the land, to show cause, within 30 days
of service, why the land should not be acquired. Section 3(3) states that after
F considering the causes, if any, shown and after giving an opportunity to be
heard, the Government may pass such order as it deems fit. Section 3 (4)
which corresponds to section 6(1) of the Central Act, 1894 states that the
Government shall, in case it decides to acquire, issue a declaration by
notification. Under Section 3(5), on such declaration being published under
G Section 3(4) the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from
all encumbrances. Under Section 3(6), once the. land is so vested under
Section 3(5), the Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who
may be in possession to .surrender or deliver possession thereof to the
Government or any person duly authorized within 30 days. Section 3(7)
permits possession to be taken by Governn1ent, if the occupant does not
H surrender the land. Section 4 of the Act deals with" Amount payable". It will
~

MARIYAPPA v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 995
be noticed that to some extent the above provisions deviate from the A
. A.
corresponding provisions of the Central Act, 1894 .

We are mainly concerned with Section 5. It deals with "Application of
Central Act 1 of 1894" and reads as follows:

"Section 5: Application of Central Act 1 of 1894: The provisions of B
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) as amended
.,.
by the land Acquisition (Karnataka Extension and Amendment) Act,
1961 shall, mutatis mutandis apply in respect of en'}uiry and award
by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment
of amount and the payment in respect of Land acquisition under this
Act." c
Section 6 deals with power of State Government to delegate its powers
(except those under Section 7). Section 7 deals with rule making power and
laying the same before the legislative.

,,I., From the above, it will be seen that the Karnataka Act, 1972 contains D
only seven sections and that it does not contain any independent machinery
; or provisions for the pmpose of inquiry, reference, award and apportionment
and payment of compensation.

Section 5 of Karnataka Act, 1972 speaks of amendments to the Central E
Act, 1894 by the Karnataka Act 1961:

Section 5 of the Karnataka Act, 1972 refer to the application of. the
Central Act, 1894 as an1endcd by the Karnataka Act, 1961. These amendm1mts
concern the following sections of the Central Act, 1894 - Sections 1(2),
Sections 3 (aa), (d), (e), (ee), (f), proviso (iii) (g), (b); (1) 4(1A), 4(2), (3) (4) F
5-5A(l), (2), (6) (IA), (2) - (Section 8 is omitted), 9(2), (3), (4), 10(1), addition
~

of proviso to 11, 12(1)(2), 12-A, 15-A, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26(2), 27(2),
28, 30-A, 34, 35 (IA) (IB) (ii), 35(2), 37-A, 45, 46, 50, 54. We are not refening
to the details of these amendments except to say that the Dy. Commissioner
replaces the Collector, certain extra details are to be given in Sections 4, 6
notifications, the Section 4(1) notification has also be seived on the owner G
or occupier, report on Section 5-A inquiry is to be approved by the Government,
; ...
... the State Government may revise the Dy. Commissioner's orders, application
for reference to Court is to be made within 90 days of seivice of notice under
section 12(2) and the Dy. Commissioner is to make a reference to the Civil
Court in 90 days failing which the affected party can directly move the Civil H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!998] l S.C.R.

A Court. In Section 24 certain other factors are introduced for detennining
market value. Sections 28 and 34 are amended fixing a rate of interest of 5%
rather than 6%. There are a few other amendments which are not material in
the present context.

It will be noticed that for purposes of the Karnataka Act, 1972 the
B provisions in the Central Act (as amended by the Karnataka Act, 1961) apply
in respect of inquiry, award by the Dy. Commissioner, in respect of the
procedure for reference to a Civil Court and an adjudication by the Civil Court·
on the question of compensation and apportionment. On these aspects, there
are - as pointed out earlier, no provisions in the Karnataka Act, 1972.
c Do the word' 'mutatis mu tan dis' in Section 5 bring ir; the latter Central
amendments into the Karnataka Act. 1972?

One of the submissions for the appellant was that Section 5 of the
Karnataka Act, 1972 states that the Central Act, 1894 (as anlended by Karnataka
D Act, 1961) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in respect of enquiry and award by
the Dy. Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of amount
and the payment of amount and that therefore the subsequent amendments
in 1984 to the Central Act, 1894 have to be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972.

The words 'mutatis mutandis' have been ei--plained by this Court in
E Mis As/wk Sen1ice Centre v. State of Orissa, [ 1983] 2 SCC 82. It was stated
by Venkataramiah, J, (as he then was):

"Ear 1 Jowitt's The Diciionary ofEnglish Law, (1959) defines 'mutat-
is mutandis' as with necessary changes in points in detail, meaning
that matters or things are generally the same, but to be altered when
F necessary, as to names, offices and the like ..... Extension of an earlier
Act mutatis mutandis to a later Act, brings in the idea of adaptations,
but so for only as it is necessary for the purpose, making an change
without altering the essential nature of the things changed subject of
course to express provisions made in the later Act"

0 If, therefore, the words 'mutatis mutandis' merely pem1it the application of the
Central Act, 1894 (as modified by Karnataka Act, 1961) with necessary changes
and without altering the essential nature of the thing changed then the said
principle is applicable to the Central Act, 1894 as it stood in 1972 with the
amendments brought about the Kamataka Act, 1961. Therefore the contention
H for the appellant that subsequent changes made in the Central Act after 1972
~
MARIYAPPA v. STATE [M . .JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 997

-- also get into the Kamataka Act, I 972. cannot be accepted. That question A

- <II, again depends upon whether the Central Act, 1894 has been 'incorporated'
into the Kamataka Act, 1972 or falls within the exceptions to the said principle
or whether Section 5 is to be treated as a piece of 'referential legislation'.

Incorporation or referential legis/atinn and exceptions to Incorporation -
supplemental legislation- B
~
As the case before us, as we shall presently show, falls within the
'exception' 'to the rule of incorporation', we shall refer to the relevant rulings
in th is b eha If.

The leading case in which the broad principles were laid down is the c
one in .S~ate ofA!P. v. J/ V. Narasimhan, [1975] 2 SCC 377. On a consideration
of the case-law, it was stated by Fazal Ali, J. as follows:

.. 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 arc totally unaffected by any repeal D
"·
or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not
app(v i.1 the following cases :

(a) Where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental
to each other.
E
~b) Where tl1e two Acts are in pari materia.

(c) Where the amendment in the previous Act, is·not imparted into tl1e
subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly
unworkable and ineffectual; and
F
(d) Where tl1e amendment oftl1e previous Act, either expressly or by
-... necessary intendmcnt, applies the said provisions to the subsequent
Act."

Jn tiiut rase, the position was that tlie Prevention of Corruption Act
19.P adopted the definition of public seryant from Section 21 of the Indian
Penal Code, Question was whetlier tl1e subsequent amendmen~ made in I 958
G
and 1964 to section 21 of llie Penal Code enlarging Ilic definition of public
,
servant', could be read into the Prevention of Corruption Act, J 947. Though
it was held that tl1e 1947 Act dealt with a spccifi c offence of 'criminal
misconduct' while the Penal Code dealt with 'bribery' and were not in pari
I
mareria still, it was held that having regard to tl1e preamble and object of the H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Penal Code, there could be no
doubt that the former Act was undoubtedly a statute Supplemenml to the
latter. Hence it was held that the amendments of 1958 and 1964 in the l.P.C.
should be read into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as the case fell
within one of the exceptions to the principle of 'incorporation'.

B Similarly, in Western Coaljl•ltb Ltd. v. S.A.D. Au/hori9'. [1982] l SCC
125, Section 69(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam
(Act 23173) stated that the special Area Development Authority under that
Act would, for the purpose of taxation have the powers which a Municipal
Corporation or a Municipal Council has under the M.P. Municipal Corporation
C Act, 1956 or the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, as the case may be.
Chandraclmd, C.J. gave two reasons as to why the subsequent amendments
made in the 1956 and 1961 Acts could be read into the 1973 Act. One reason
was that the Act of 1973 did not, in Section 69(d), incorporate any particular
provision of the 1956 and 1961 Act but said that for the 'purposes of taxation'
the A~thority shall have the powers which a Municipal Corporation or a
D Municipal Council would have under the 1956 and 1961 Acts respectively. It
was not therefore a case where merely~ some provisions of one Act were
bodily lifted into another. The other reason was that the 1973 Act did not
provide for any independent power of taxation or any machinery of its mm
for the exercise of the power of taxation. Further, the three Acts were
E supplemen_tal to each other.
Ujagar Prints v. Union ofIndia, [1989] 3 SCC 488 is again a similar case.
Under Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special
Importance) Act, 1957 it was said that the provisions of the Central Excise and
Salt Act, 1944 and rules made thereunder - including those relating to refunds
F and exemptions from duty - shall, so far as may. be, apply in relation to the
levy and collection of the additional duties as they apply in relation to tlie
levy and collection of the duties of excise on the goods specified in sub-
section (1). Now section 3(1) provided for levy and collection of additional
duties in respect of goods described (ri the First Schedule to the 1957 Act
G which were produced or 'manufactured' in India. It was held that the definition
of the term 'manufacture' enacted in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 -
as enlarged by Amendment Act 6 of 1980 - had to be read into the 1957 Act.
1
It was observed that the Additional Duties Act, 1957 was merely supplemental r
to the 1944 Act. While the 1944 Act imposed a general levy of excise dufy I

on all goods manufactured and produced, the aim of the 1957 Act was to
H supplement the levy by an additional duty of the same nature on certain
MARJYAPPA v. STA TE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 999

goods. Unlike the Finance Act, the 1957 Act was incomplete as to the basis A
of the charge and its provisions would become totally unworkable unless the
concepts of ·manufacture' and ·assessable' value as determined under the
1944 Act were carried into it.

Yet another case where the legislation was held by itself to be
'unworkable' and supplemental to another Act is the one in State of Kera/a B
v. Mis. Attesee, [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 733. It was there held that the scope of
exemption under the head 'cotton fabrics' in Schedule III item 7 of the Kerala
General Sales Tax Act, 1963 would depend upon the definition in item 19 of
Schedule I to Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 with reference to its amendments
upto the r~levant date. Hence it was held that the amendments to the Central C
Act were to be read into the Kerala Act.

Two other rulings of this Court relating to land acquisition and which
arose from Kamataka are relevant in this context. In the State of Kamataka,
there are two statutes, - the Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 and the City of
Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945. In each of these Acts there is a provision D
(Section 23 in the fonner and Section 27 in t11e latter) stating t11at the acquisition
under t11e Act "shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are
applicable, of t11e Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894" and also by certain
other provisions of t11ese Acts. (The Mysore Act of 1894 and the Central Act
1894 are almost identical). Now bot11 t11ese Acts of 1903 and 1945 contained E
provisions which require compensation to be paid with reference to t11e
second notification which publishes t11e 'declaration' (i.e. corresponding to
Section 6 of the Central Act, 1894) and not the one which corresponds to
Section 4 of the Central Act. However in 1927, the Mysore Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was amended by directing compensation to be paid with reference
to the first notification (corresponding to Section 4 (1) of t11e Central Act). F
Question arose in two cases, one under each of t11ese Acts, as to whether
the said amendment of 1927 would have to be read into the said Acts.

Now so far as the Bangalore Act of 1945 is concerned, the case was
decided in Land Acquisition Officer v. H Narayaniah, [1976] 4 SCC 9. This
case presents no difficulty because the said Act was passed in 1945 and by G
that date, the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 already stood amended in
1927. The reference in Section 27 oft11e 1945 Act to the Mysore Act of 1894
t11erefore obviously included all the amendments made to the Mysore Land
Acquisition 1894 by 1945 including the one made in 1927 and, therefore,
compensation was to be paid only as per the first notification (i.e. the one H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A corresponding to Section 4(1) of the c·entral Act).

The case more in point is the one in Special Land Acquisition Officer
v. P. Govindan, [1976] 4 SCC 697, which dealt with the Mysore Act of 1903
because the question there was whether the subsequent amendment of 1927
to the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shifting the relevant date for fixing
B compensation from the corresponding Section 6 notification to Section 4(1)
notification, would have to be read into the Mysore Act, 1903. It was held
that it should-notwithstanding certain obiter observation to the contrary in '
Narayanaih 's case. TI1e provision in Section 23 of the Mysore Act, 1903 read
as follows:

c "Section 23. The acquisition, ot11erwise than by agreement of land
within or without the city under this Act, shall be regulated by t11e
provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Mysore Land
Acquisition Act 1894 and by the following further provisions,
namely, ..... "
D It was held by t11is Court that tlle amendments in 1927 to tlle Mysore Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 have to be read into tlle Mysore Act, 1903. The '·
decision of the Full Bench of tlle Mysore High Court to the contrary in
Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR (1972) Mysore 193 was
overruled. In tllat context Beg J. (as he then was) observed:
E
"If Section 23(1) oftlle (Mysore) Acquisition Act (1903) lays down,
as we think it does, the only procedure for award of compensation,
it has to be followed as it exists at the time ofacquisitiof1 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
F it means tllat whichever may be the procedure there, with regard to
matters •regulating compensation under the (Mysore) Acquisition
Act (1894) at t11e time of acquisition proceedings, will apply to
acquisition under the Mysore Act, (1903)" ....

"It was enough to lay down, as Section 23 of the Mysore Act (1903)
G does, that tllegeneral procedure found in the Acquisition Act (1894)
will apply except to tlle extent it was inapplicable. Tilis means t11at
amendments of the procedure in the Acquisition Act, (1894) will apply
if it is capable of application" (words in brackets supplied).
From tlle above passage (words in brackets supplied) is clear that when the
H mysore act, 1903 adopted the procedure under the Mysore Act, 1894, tlle
MARIYAPPA v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 1001
provisions of the latter Act as they stood "at the time of acquisition" had to A
be applied for 'regulating' the acquisition of land under the Mysore Act, 1903.
This was because the Mysore Act, 1903 said that the "general procedure"
under the Mysore Act, 1894 applied except to the extent it was inapplicable.

In our view, the above rnlings of this Court are more in point and are
directly applicable to the Karnataka Act, 1972. But, before we draw our final B
conclusions, it is necessary to refer to three more rnlings, one decided by the
Privy Council and two decided by this Court recently and state why, in our
opinion, those decisions are distinguishable.

The decision of the Privy Council is the one in Secretary of State v.
Hindustan Coop. Society Ltd., AIR (193 l) PC 148. There the provisions of the C
Calcutta Improvement Act, l 911 (Act 13/1911) fell for conoideration. That Act
coupled with its schedule contained provisions not only for issuing relevant
notifications in regard to acquisition but also for reference to a Tribunal for
passing an award relating to compensation. By Act 18 of l 9 ll a right of
appeal was given to tl1e High Court against the Award of the Tribunal. Under D
the Act, there was no further right of appeal to the Privy Council. In l 92 l,
.the Central Act, 1894 was amended in two respects, one by introducing
Section 26(2) which deemed tl1e award of the reference Court a 'decree' and
the reasons a 'Judgment' and the other an amendment in Section 54 of the
Central Act, 1894 giving a right of appeal to the Privy Council from any decree
passed by the High Court from an award of the reference Court. Now the E
Calcutta Act, l 91 l contained a provision in Section 69 that the "Board may
acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for canying out the
purposes of the Act". Section 70 related to the constitution of a Tribunal -
as detailed in Section 72 - for the purpose of performing the functions of the
{
., Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board under the land F
Acquisition Act, 1894. However, Section 71 modified the Central Act, 1894 as
follows:

"Section 71: Modification of Land Act, 1894: For the purpose of
acquiring land under the said Act for the Board -
G
(a) the Tribunal shall (except for the purpose of Section 54 of that
Act) be deemed to be the Court, and the President of the Tribunal shall
be deemed to be the Judge, under the said Act.

(b) the said act shall be subject to the further modifications indicated
in the schedule. H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S. C.R.

A (c) ....................................... .

(d) the award of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be tl1e award of tl1e
Court under tl1e Land Acquisition Act, 1894."

The modification made by section 71 (a) was crucial to the case.
B Section 77 referred to tl1e passing oftl1e 'award' by the Tribunal under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for determining tl1e
compensation, apportionment, etc.

The appellant, the Secretary of State, contended tl1at tl1e appeal to tl1e
C Privy Council lay because tl1e amendment to tl1e Central Act in 1921 by
substituting Section 26(2) which deemed tl1e 'award' a 'decree' had to be read
into tl1e Calcutta Act, 1911 and if tl1at was done, tl1en an appeal would lie,
tmder Section 54 oftl1e Central Act, 1894 to the Privy Council. The respondents
contended tl1at such a telescoping of Section 26(2) of tl1e Central Act, 1894
into tl1e Calcutta Act, 1911 would be repugnant to tl1e e:qiress words in '-
D Section 7l(a): "except for tl1e purposes of Section 54 of the Act". The said
contention of tl1e respondents was accepted by the Privy Council. Their
Lordships also quoted Lord Wrenbury in Ex parte St. Sepulchre (1864) [33
L.J. Ch. 372] to the effect tl1at it will not be possible to read the provisions
of an earlier Act into a latter Act, if tl1e earlier Act
E "gives in itself a complete rule on tl1e subject matter".

It was also observed that the provision in Sec:;tion 70(a) of tl1e Calcutta Act,
1911 deliberately excluding Section 54 oftl1e Central Act, 1894 was

,.·,
"an indication of tl1e local legislature's intention that tl1ere should be,
F under tl1e special Code applicable to tl1e Improvement Trust, no
appeals beyond tl1e High Court".

A
In oilier words, two reasons were given by tl1eir lordships as to why section
26(2) oftl1e Central Act, 1894 could not be read into tl1e Calcutta Act, 1911.
One was tl1at reading Section 26(2) of tl1e Central Act, 1894 into tl1e Calcutta
G Act, 1911 would be repugnant to Section 70(a) oftl1c Calcutta Act, 1911 which .
expressly excluded Section 54 of tl1e Central Act, 1894 from the purview of
tl1e Calcutta Act. The other was tliat such telescoping would not be permissible
if tl1e latter statute which, in certain respects, referred to an earlier statute, was
otl1erwise a complete Code by itself. This is clear from tl1e fact tl1at ilie
H Calcutta Act, 1911Contains177 sections and a schedule, Chapter III relates
MARIYAPPA v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 1003

to schemes and publication of notifications in that behalf and Chapter IV A
deals with acquisition and disposal of land containing sections 68 to 81;
among these, section 70 deals with reference to the Tribunal: Section 77 deals
with passing of award by the Tribunal; Section 7l(b) and the Schedule to the
Act (which contains 14 clauses) deals with various matters relating to
notifications as well as fixation of market value. On the other hand, we have B
no such elaborate machinery provided in the Kamataka Act, 1972 and the Act
has only seven sections. The Kamataka Act does not contain any separate
procedure for inquiry, award not does it constitute a Tribunal in the place of
the reference Court as done by the Calcutta Act of 1911. That is why we are
of the view that the Privy Council decision is clearly distinguishable.

The other two recent decisions of this Court in Gauri Shankar v. State
c
o/U.P., [1994] l SCC 92 and U.P. Avas Vikas Parishadv. Jainul Islam, (1998)
1 Scale 185, both relate to acquisition under the UP Avas Vikas Parishad
Adhiniyam 1965. We shall refer to the scheme of the UP Act, 1965 Chapter
Ill of that Act deals with formulation of schemes and issue of notifications
(sections 15 to 49); Chapter V deals with land acquisition etc. Sections 55 to D
63, Chapter V1 with constitution of Tribunal and its purposes, section 55 of
the Act reads as follows:

"Section 55(1): Any land or any interest therein required by the
Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) as E
amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, which for the purpose
shall be subject to the modifications specified in the schedule to this
Act".

Section 64 (1) says that the Tribunal shall perform the functions of the
\
• reference Court under the Central Act, 1894 as modified by the Schedule, in F
the matter of determining the compensation. Section 66 says that the Award
of the Tribunal shall, in case of land acquisition under Central Act, 1894 as
modified by the Schedule, be deemed to be an award of the Court under the
Central Act and shall, subject to section 54 of that Act, be final. Section 67
says award of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a decree and the grounds, G
a 'Judgment'. In other words, the UP Act, 1965 contains an elaborate machinery
like the Calcutta Act, 1911.

In Gauri Shankar's case, decided by K. Ramaswamy & Sahai, JJ. the
notifications for acquisition under Section 28 (1) were of the year 1973 while
the notifications under Section 32 (1) were of 1977. Before 1984, the Allahabad H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A High Court had t;;ken the view that the notification under Section 32 (I)
corresponding to declaration under Section 6 (I) of the Central Act need not
be issued within 3 years of the notification under Section 28(1) COJTesponding
to section 4(1) of the Central Act. In cases arising after 1984, it was also held
by the Allahabad High Court tliat Section 11-A was not applicable to the UP
Act. Gauri Shankar's case related to the 3 year rnle in the proviso to Section
B 6 of t11e Central Act. K. Ramaswamy, J. held (para 8) tliat the principle of
'incorporation' applied and that the provisions of Section 28, 32 of t11e UP
Act, 1965 were a separate and complete Code, that Section 55 read wit11 clause
(2) of the Schedule, which contained t11e need for issuing the preliminary and
final notifications under sections 28 and 32 of the UP Act, formed an integral
C scheme (para 25). The Schedule amended Sections 4, 6, 17 and 23 of t11c
Central Act, 1894. It was pointed out tliat Section 28(2) and Section 32 (1)
related to the publication of notifications without prescribing any limilalion
and that tl1e UP Act 1965 was "a complete code in itself'. It was also held
that the Act was not otherwise unworkable or ineffectual, though it may be
incompatible with tl1e provisos to Section 6(1) of L.A. Act (para 33). On the
D otl1er hand, Sahai, J. held that tl1e principle of 'incorporation' did not apply
but that of facts, it was not a fit case for inteiference inasmuch as tl1e Parishad
had already taken possession. In t11at view of the matter, both the learned
Judges directed compensation as on the date when the notification
corresponding to Section 6 declaration was issued. We shall next to refer to
E the recent judgment in Jainul Islam's case where the opinion of K. Ramaswamy,
J. was accepted.

The question which arose in Jainul Islam's case [1998 (1) SCALE 185]
under tl1e same UP Act. 1965 was whether Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and
Section 28 oftl1e Central Act, 1894 as amended in 1984, were attracted to the
F UP Act. Approving the view of K. Ramaswamy, J. in Gauri Shankar's case
[1994] l SCC 92, Agrawal, J. held tl1at the principle of 'incorporation' applied
and tl1erefore t11e above amendments of 1984 to t11e Central Act, 1894 did not
apply. Reference was also made to the Privy Council Judgment in Secretary
of State v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Lid., AIR (1931) PC 149.
After considering t11e various provisions of t11e UP Act, 1965, it was held
G (para 21), that provisions of Section 55 and Schedule to the Act were "on the
same lines" as the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 and that
the principles laid down by the Privy Council were equally applicable. Adverting
to the exceptions referred to in Stale ofMP. v. MV. Narasimhan, [1975] 2 SCC
377, it was observed that the UP Act, 1965 and the Central Act, 1894 did not
H come within the exceptions and t11at the provisions of the UP Act, 1965 were
MARIYAPPA v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 1005

·not supplemental' to each other, nor was the UP Act in pari materia with A
A
1he Central Act because it dealt with other matters which did not fall within
the ambit of the Central Act. The UP Act was self contained and complete.
Agrawal, J. observed (para 23) as follows:

'·the Adhinyam and the L.A. Act cannot be regarded supplemental to
each other. TI1e Adhinyam contains provisions regarding acquisition B
of land which are complete and self-contained. Nor can the provisions
in the Adhinyam be said to be in pari maleria with the L.A. Act
because the Adhiniyam also deals with matters which do not fall
within the ambit of the L.A. Act".

In our view, these three rulings, namely Secretary of State v. Hindustan C
Cooperative Society Ltd., AIR (1931) PC 149, Gauri Shankar's case [1994] 1
SCC 92 andJainul Islam's case (1998) 1Scaie185, are clearly distinguishable.
As pointed out earlier the Kamataka Act, 1972 has only 7 Sections which deal
with the issuance of notification corresponding to Sections 4 and 6, and 9 of
Central Act and certain other minor modifications relating to acquisition and D
payment of compensation. The Act has no provision for a separate inquiry
or mvard or reference to a T1ibunal, or a machinery for payment of compensation
or apportionment. TI1e Central Act, 1894 alone is to apply in so far as it related
to inquiry and award, the reference to Court, the apportionment of amount
and tJ1e payment of amo1mt in respect of lands acquired under the Act'. There
are no detailed provisions as in the Calcutta Act, 1911 or as in the UP Act, E
1%5.

We are of tJ1e view that tJ1e Kamataka Act, 1972 clearly comes within
the exceptions stated in Af. V. Narasimhan 's case for the following reasons:

i
... Firstly there being no detailed machinery whatsoever in the Kamataka F
Act, 1972, that Act caimot be treated as a self-contained or complete Code.
Secondly, the Kamataka Act, 1972 and tJ1e Central Act, 1894 (as amended by
tJ1c Karnataka Act, 1961) are supplemental to each other for unless the
Central Act supplements tJ1e Kamataka Act, the latter cannot function. Thirdly,
tJ1ese Acts are in pari materia because ilie Kamataka Act, 1972 - unlike the G
Calcutta Act, 1911 and the UP Act, 1965 - does not deal wiili any other
subject but deals with the same subject of land acquisition which othenvise
would have fallen wiiliin the ambit of ilie Central Act, 1894. For the aforesaid
reasons, we are of tJ1e view iliat ilie amendments made in 1984 to the Central
Act, 1894 including Section 11-A have to be read into the Kamataka Act,
1972, so far as enquiry, award, reference to Court, apportionment of amount H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A and the payment of amount in respect of land acquired under the Act.
Admittedly, the prescribed period under section 11-A has elapsed and
it is stated that even now, the award is not passed. Therefore, it is clear that
the conditions of section 11-A are violated, and accordingly, the entire land
acquisition proceedings including tl1e notifications under section 3(1) and
B 3(4) of the Kamataka Act, 1972 lapse. We declare accordingly.

Before parting witl1 t11e case, we may say tliat in this appeal we are
concerned only with tl1e question whether section 11-A as introduced by tlle
Amendment in 1984 to t11e Central Act, 1894 could be read into tl1e Kamataka
C Act, 1972 and we have held tliat it should be read into the Kamataka Act,
1972 because there is no such provision in the Kamataka Act, 1972. The
question as to the telescoping of ot11er amendments brought to tlle Central
Act, 1894 by tlie 1984 amendment and tl1e consequential impact thereof is not
before us and we should not be understood as deciding any such matter. If
tl1e question of applicability of any otl1er amendment brought by the Central
D Act in 1984 to tl1c Kamataka Act, 1972 arises in Kamataka, such a question
may have to be decided separately.

Furtlier, in tl1e impugned Judgment, certain rulings under tl1e Bangalore
Development Act, 1976 have been followed. We have gone by tlle provisions
of tlle Kamataka Act, 1972. We are not to be understood as having said
E anytliing witl1 regard to tlie Bangalore Development Act, 1976. We are in fact
told tliat some tliat some appeals are pending in this Court in regard to tlie
said Act of 1976.

In tlie result, tl1e appeals are allowed and it is declared tllat the
notifications issued under the Act under Section 3(1) and Section 3(4) have
F lapsed.

S.V.K.I. Appeals allowed.