Holding

Sections 6 and 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are inapplicable to acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and therefore the award stands.

Summary

The appellant, Munithimmaiah, owned land that was acquired under the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act, 1976 for a development scheme. An award of acquisition was passed in 1995, but the appellant challenged it, invoking the limitation periods prescribed in Sections 6 and 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in 1984), arguing that the award was barred by time. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, following Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, which held those sections inapplicable to BDA proceedings. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the BDA Act and the Central Land Acquisition Act are supplemental or pari‑materia statutes and whether the limitation provisions could be imported. The Court held that the BDA Act is a special State law dealing with urban development, not merely land acquisition, and that Sections 6 and 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied to acquisitions under the BDA Act. Consequently, the award remained valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Sections 6 and 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended) apply to acquisition proceedings under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
Whether the limitation period prescribed in those sections can render the award passed under the BDA Act invalid.
Whether the BDA Act and the Central Land Acquisition Act are supplemental or pari‑materia legislations.

Legislation cited

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976s. 19, s. 27, s. 36
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A, s. 23, s. 27, s. 6
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Subjects

Land acquisitionLimitation periodBangalore Development Authority ActSection 6Section 11-ASpecial legislationState ListCentral legislationScheme lapseAward validity

Judgment

... MUN!THIMMAIAH
V.
A

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

MARCH 22, 2002

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: Section 19.

Land Acquisition-Improvement scheme framed under Act-Challenge
by Land owner-Ground-Scheme vitiated because of limitation prescribed c
under Sections 6 and I I-A of Land Acquisition Act-Rejection of writ by High
Court-High Court held Sections 6 and I 1-A were not applicable to scheme
framed under B.D.A. Act-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, High Court
right in holding that provisions of Ss. 6 and II-A cannot be imported any
consideration for purposes of B.D.A. Act.
~-
D
Land Acquisition Act, I 894

Section-6andI1-A as amended by 1984 Amendment-Held inapplicable
to a scheme framed under Bangalore-Development Authority Act, 1976.

Land belonging to appellant was acquired for a public purpose under E
the provision of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. He filed a
writ petition in the High Court seeking directions for quashing the acquisition
proceedings as well as the Award. The challenge was made in view of the time

J limitation contained in Ss. 6 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as
amended by the Land Acquisition {Amendment) Act, 1984. The High Court
dismissed the petition of the appellant-landowner holding that the case was F
covered against the appellant by an earlier judgment of Division Bench
reported in Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State ofKarnataka, ILR {1997) Kar 1419.

In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of appellant that the
High Court erred in following the decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd case and
that having regard to the provisions contained in S. 11-A of the Land
G
.... Acquisition Act, 1894, the Award passed beyond the stipulated period of
limitation was illegal and that after the expiry of the stipulated period under
• S. ll-A, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and, therefore, the claim of
the appellant ought to have been sustained.

825 H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. A scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for implementation
under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, cannot be stultified
or rendered ineffective and unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act,
particularly of the nature ofSs.6 and 11-A, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
B which cannot also on its own force have any application to actions taken under
the B.D.A. Act Consequently, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the reasoning
of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in *Khoday Distilleries
I
Ltd case to exclude the applicability of Ss. 6 and 11-As amended and inserted
by the Central Amendment Act of 1984 to proceedings under the B.D.A. Act
[837-D-E)
c
2. The B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot be said to be either
supplemental to each other, or pari materia legislations. That apart, the B.D.A.
Act could not be said to be either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if the
subsequent amendments to the Central Act are not also imported into
D consideration. On an overall consideration of the entire situation also it could
not either possibly or reasonably be stated that the subsequent amen~ments
to the Central Act get attracted or applied either due to any express provision
or by necessary intendment or implication tO acquisitions under the B.D.A.
Act. When the B.D.A. Act, expressly provides by specifically enacting the
E circumstances under which and the period of time on the expiry of which alone
the proceedings initiated thereunder shall lapse due to any default, the
different circumstances and period of limitation envisaged under the Central
Act, 1894, as amended by the amending Act of 1984 for completing the
proceedings on pain of letting them lapse forever, cannot be imported into
consideration for purpose of B.D.A. Act without doing violence to the language
F or destroying and defeating the very intendment of the State Legislature
expressed by the enactment of its own special provisions in a special law falling
under a topic of legislation exclusively earmarked for the State Legislature.
[836-H; 837-A-D)

3. The B.D.A. Act, is not for mere acquisition of land. It is an Act to
G provide for the establishment of a Development Authority to facilitate and
ensure a planned growth and development of the city of Bangalore and areas
adjacent thereto and acquisition of lands, if any, therefor is merely incidental
thereto. In pith and substance the Act is one which will squarely fall under,
•
and be traceable to the powers of the State Legislature under Entry 5 of List
H II of the Sevenths Schedule and not a law for acquisition of land like the Land
MUNITHIMMAIAH v. STATE [RAJU, J.] 827
Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule A
to the Constitution of India, the field in respect of which is already occupied
by the Central Enactment of 1894, as amended from time to time. If at all
the said Act, so far as acquisition of land for its developmental activities are
concerned, in substance and effect will constitute a special law providing for
acquisition for the special purposes of the B.D.A. and the same was not
considered to be part of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It could not also be B
legitimately stated, on a reading of S. 36 of the Act that the Karnataka
legislature intended thereby to bind themselves to any future additions or
_,. amendments, which might be made by altogether a different legislature, be
it the Parliament, to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [836-D-G]

*Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1997 Kar. 1419, C
affirmed.

Mariyappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 276,
distinguished.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, D
Mysore v. P. Govindan, AIR (1976) SC 2517; The Land Acquisition Officer, City
Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. H. Narayaniah Etc. Etc., AIR (1976)
SC 2403; Farid Ahmed Abdul Samed and Anr. v. The Municipal Corpn. of the
City of Ahemdabad and Anr. AIR (1976) SC 2095; State of MP. v. M V.
Narasimhan, [1975] 2 SCC 377; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishadv.Jainul Islam E
and Anr., [1998] 2 SCC 467 and Nagpur Improvement Trust and Ors. v. Vithal
Rao and Ors., [1973) I SCC 500, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2338 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2000 of the Karnataka High F
Court in W.P .No. 2083 of 1996.

D.P. Chaturvedi, K.M. Parkash, N.P.S. Panwar and S.N. Bhat for the
Appellant.

-
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Girish G
Kumar and Ankur Kulkarni for K.H. Nobin Singh for the Respondent.

Sanjay R. Hedge, Satya Mitra an Jayanath for State.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJU, J. Special leave granted. H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

.A This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2.3.2000 of a
Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 2083 of
1996, wherein the relief sought in the na~re of a writ of certiorari to quash
the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey No.81/6 in Agrahara
Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanth~pura Hob Ii, Bangalore North Taluk, and the
Award said to have been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
B Bangalore Development Authority, on 22.2.1995, came to be rejected on the
ground that the matter is covered against the appellant by an earlier Division
Bench Judgment reported in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. State of Karnataka,
ILR (1997) KAR. 1419]. For appreciating the points raised as well as the
grievance sought to be made out, it would be necessary to advert to certain
C salient factual details pertaining to the matter.

The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of the land comprised
in Survey No.81/6, Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapur Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. Permission was said to have been obtained by the
appellant on 2.8.1969 from the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, sanctioning
D conversion of one acre 16 guntas in the said Survey number into non-
agricultural use, leaving the remaining 20 guntas as 'Kharab' land. The
permission was subject to certain eonditions, which, among other things,
included c;:ompliance with the formalities prescribed by and obligations to the
City Improvement Trust Board or need to secure the approval for the layout
E and building plans from the said Board and obtaining of necessary licences,
etc. from the competent authority before the commencement of any
construction work on the said land. The appellant also claims to have
substantially commenced construction. While the matter stood thus, a
preliminary Notification was said to have been published in the Official
Gazette dated 25.7.1974 proposing the acquisition of the land belonging to
F the appellant in Survey No.81/6 along with some other lands in Survey Nos.81/
1,81/2., 81/3, 81/4 and 81/5 for the formation ofa layout known as the "West
of Chord Road-IV Stage". The appellant claims to have filed objections,
among other things, stating that already a ·proposal dated 12.8.1974 for
formation of a private layout under Section 25 of the City Improvement Trust
G Board Act was submitted by him and the same was pending with the CIT
Board. Once again, the appellant claims that the portions of the land were
sold to various purchasers and buildings were put up leaving no vacant land
for formation of any site in Survey No.81/2 and only 27 guntas of land in ·
Survey No. 8112 was used by the owners of the buildings in the area as
Kacha Road.
H
MUNITHIMMA!AH v. STA TE (RAJU. J.] 829
By a Gazette Notification on 31. I .1980 the Government of Kamataka A
published a Notification under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] making known
about the sanction of an improvement scheme for the formation of layout
called "West of Chord Road, IV Stage", and the publication of preliminary
Notification on 25.7.1974 and the declaration then made under Section 19 of
the Act that the lands specified in the said Notification, noticed supra, are B
needed for a public purpose for the formation of the layout in question.
..... Thereafter, an Award was also said to have been passed on 19.3.1981 in
respect of Survey No.81/2 measuring 27 guntas and possession of the same
was also taken for forming a road. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
B.D.A., was also appointed to perform the functions of the Deputy C
Commissioner under the Land Acquisition Act in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 36 of the Act read with sub-section (2) of Sections
6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended and extended from
time to time by the Land Acquisition (Kamataka Extension and Amendment)
L Act, 1961. The appellant claims that the Commissioner of the Bangalore
Development Authority also informed on 19.8.1982 that the land comprised D
in Survey No.81/6, noticed above, was not really required by the CIT Board
for its Schemes. When the appellant approached the Commissioner, B.D.A.,
he was also informed about the Notification of the lands measuring one acre
36 guntas for acquisition for the Scheme in question and the pendency of
those proceedings. Finally, as noticed earlier, the Award .came to be made E
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 22.12.1995. Since the
appellant seems to have mainly challenged the proceedings placing reliance
on Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act inserted into the main Act by
the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and the very question similar
to the one raised, was dealt with elaborately and held against the stand of the
petitioner in the decision reported in Khoday Distilleries Limited case (supra), F
the Writ Petition of the appellant came to be dismissed necessitating this
appeal.

The main and substantial question raised by Shri D.P. Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the appellant, before us is that the High Court erred in following G

-. the earlier decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. case (supra) and that having
regard to the provisions contained in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, the Award passed beyond the stipulated period of limitation is
illegal and that after the expiry of the stipulated period under Section 11-A,
the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and, L11erefore, the claim of the
appellant ought to have been sustained. Though, the learned counsel for the H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.

A appellant tried to urge that the lands of the appellant are not really required
to be acquired for implementation of the Scheme in question, we are not
adverting to such contentions in detail since no such ground seems to have
--
been argued before the High Court and strong objection is also taken by the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents for such pleas being raised in this
Court. To complete the sequence of narration of facts and particularly the
B grievance sought to be made about the delay by the appellant in this Court,
it is useful to refer to the fact that under the pretext of alleged trespass into
the land in question pursuant to the allotments made by the B.D.A. in favour
of certain third parties, the appellant filed O.S. No.3361 of 1989 seeking a
declaration that the land was not acquired for any public purpose and also for
C an injunction restraining interference with his possession of the land. Though
the appellant was able to secure interim orders in his favour, which c~ to
be confirmed at that stage by the High Court also ultimately, the Civil Suit
came to be dismissed only on 20.1.1995 holding that the appellant was not
in possession and that the. Civil Court cannot declare the Notification for
acquisition, to be null and void. The appellant appears to have filed an appeal •
D in R.F.A. No.90195 as well as an overlapping Writ Petition. It is at that .stage
that taking leave of the Court, the Award came to be passed and the matter
was brought to the notice of the High Court on 6.12.1996 in the pending
proceedings.

Per contra, Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General, as
E also the other ccunsel following his submissions, submitted that the decision
rendered in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (supra) by a Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court, which came to be followed and applied in the present
case, lays down the correct position of law and the decision does not suffer
from any infirmity to call for interference in this appeal.
F
Strong reliance has been placed for the appellant on the decisions
reported in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust
Board, Mysore v P. Govindan, AIR (1976) SC 2517 and Mariyappa and Ors.
V. State of Karnataka and Ors., [1998] 3 sec 276.

G In the first of the above decisions, this Court, after adverting to an
earlier decision reported in The Land Acquisition Officer, Ciiy Improvement
Trust Board, Bangalore v. H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc., AIR (1976) SC 2403,
observed as follows: I

. H "6. It is true that it can be more plausibly argued, with regard to the
MUNITHIMMAIAH v. STATE [RAJU, J.] 831
provisions of Mysore Act of 1903, that the market value for A
acquisitions under this Act should be determined with reference to
the Acquisition Act as it stood in 1903. After carefully considering
this point of view, we think that such a departure from the generally
accepted procedure which regulates acquisition and compensation for
it under similar Acts in the State of Mysore as well as under Land
Acquisition Act today has to be justified by something more explicit, B
express and substantial than the mere date of enactment of the Mysore
Act. If Section 23( I) of the Acquisition Act lays down, as we think
it does, the only procedure for award of compensation, it has to be
followed as it exists at the time of acquisition proceedings. No one
has a vested right in a particular procedure. It is a fair interpretation C
of Section 23 of the Mysore Act of 1903 to hold that it means that,
whatever may be the procedure there, with regard to matters regulating
compensation under the Acquisition Act, at the time of acquisition
I proceedings will apply to acquisitions under the Mysore Act."

Proceeding further, and placing also reliance on Section 6 of the Mysore D
General Clauses Act, it was ultimately held that in substance Section 23 of
the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 provided for the application of
the general procedure found in the Land Acquisition Act except to the extent
it was inapplicable, meaning thereby that the amendments of the procedure
in the Land Acquisition Act, will apply "if it is capable of application". In E
Narayanaiah 's case (supra) this Court, while construing the words "so far as
they are applicable" in Section 27 of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act,
1945, observed that the intention in using these words was to exclude only
-" those provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which become inapplicable
because of any special procedure prescribed under the Bangalore Act and
those words sufficiently bring in or make applicable, so far as it is reasonably F
possible, the general provisions like Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
laying down the principles for the determination of compensation payable. In
that context, it was specifically observed, "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 G
either expressly, or by a necessary implication, excluded must be applied."

It is not only relevant but necessary to notice even at this stage that the
Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court, while deciding the case reported
in Khoday Distilleries Ltd (supra) specifically referred to and only applied
the ratio of the above noticed decisions of this Court as well as the one H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A rendered in Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and Anr. v. The Municipal Corporation
of the City of Ahmedabad and Anr., AIR (1976) SC 2095. A detailed and
meticulous comparative analysis of the relevant provisions of the B·angalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as
amended by the Amending Act of 1984, was made by the Division Bench of
the High Court and it was observed as hereunder:
B
" ....... The two sets of provisions under Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the
L.A. Act are comparable with the provisions of Sections 17 and 18
of the B.D.A. Act. Under the provisions of the L.A. Act, if the final
notification is not issued within the period mentioned therein and if
any award is not made within the time prescribed under Section 11-
c A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse. In the case of
schemes covered by the B.D.A. Act, the authority has to execute the
schemes within a period of 5 years and ifthe authority fails to execute
the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of
Section 36 shall become inoperative. Thus in substance there are
D provisions under the B.D.A. Act to indicate the proposals for
acquisition, considering the objections thereto, sanctioning the proposal
for acquisition on consideration of such objections and if such acts do /
not take place within a period of 5 years the proceedings would lapse.
The Supreme Court in several decisions where questions of delay in
the implementation of the proposals made under the L.A. Act for
E purpose of completion of the acquisition proceedings occurs, has
taken the view that if the same is unreasonable, the acquisition
proceedings could be quashed, prior to the introduction of Section 6
and 11-A of the L.A. Act prescribing limitation on the powers and
the time within which such action should be taken. It would be a
F matter of policy for the Legislature to indicate the time within which
such acts should be taken. In the case of B.D.A. Act, considering the
nature and complexity of the implementation of the scheme, a period
of 5 years has been fixed for purpose of completion of the scheme
from the date of issue of the notification under Section 19 of the
B.D.A. Act on sanction of the scheme. Therefore, when the Legislature
G itself has taken note of within what period the schemes have to be
implemented and prescribes an authority thereto and also provides
for as to what consequence would follow on non-implementation of
the scheme within that period, we do not think this Court can take ~
view that such implementation of the scheme is in any way
H discriminatory when compared to the provisions of the L. A. Act. In
MUNITHIMMAIAH v. STATE [RAJU, J.] 833
substance, both the provisions provided for identical situation - may A
be in case of L.A. Act more details are set forth such as the period
within which final notification has to be issued and the period within
which award has to be passed. But in case of the B.D.A. Act
implementation of the scheme has been limited to a period of 5 years
as provided in Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act.
B
9. Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act provides that where within a period
of 5 years from the date of the publication in the official gazette of
... the declaration under Section 19( I), the authority fails to execute the
scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of
Section 36 shall become inoperative. In the L.A. Act certain period C
has been fixed which is considered to be reasonable within which the
final notification will have to be issued and award has to be passed
and if such acts are done beyond the time prescribed therein, the
acquisition of land will lapse. To the same effect is Section 27 of the
B.D.A. Act. If the B.D.A. Act provides for 5 years to be reasonable
period for substantial compliance with the scheme, we cannot state D
that the said provision is unreasonable or not proper. Thus the scheme
of the L.A. Act as modified by the B.D.A. Act would be applicable
by reason of the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 27 and 36 of the
B.D.A. Act."
E
After adopting such process of reasoning only the High Court held in
para 12 of the report, "we hold therefore that the provisions of Section 6 and
Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provide for the period of
Limitation within which the final notification can be made and award could

-
be passed are excluded from the application to acquisition made under B.D.A.
Act by necessary implication. The rest of the provisions other than those F
relating to the issue of preliminary notification, final notification or period
within which the award should be passed and lapsing of proceedings under
the B.D.A. Act, of the L.A. Act would certainly be applicable." Thus, a
decision as to the inapplicability of the provisions of Section 6 and I I -A
where the period of limitation is prescribed respectively for the issue of final G
notification and for passing the Award, in relation to proceedings for
acquisition under the B.D.A. Act came to be rendered on a mere construction
of the relevant provisions in the light of the very principles laid down by this
Court in the earlier decisions, noticed supra, even without reference to the
general question as to whether the reference in the B.D.A. Act to the provisions
of the L.A. Act amount to legislation by reference or incorporation. We are HI
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A in entire agreement with the reasoning and also affirm the ultimate conclusions
arrived at by the High Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd., case (supra) which,
in our view also, is squarely in conformity with the ratio of the earlier decisions
of this Court specifically noticed and relied upon, in support th~reof.

The decision in Mariyappa and Ors. case (supra) has no relevance or
B application to the case on hand for more than one reason. In para 40 of the
report it is found stated: "we are not to be understood as having said anything
with regard to the Bangalore Development Act, 1976". That apart, this Court,
on an analysis of the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for
Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 in contrast to the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, observed that not only the Kamataka Ad, 1972 had_
C a skeleton of only seven sections without any full machinery for being treated
as a complete Code without depending on the Central Act, 1894, for being
functional so far as the inquiry, passing of Award, seeking reference and
apportionment and payment of compensation, etc. is concerned, but the
)<.amataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 are supplemental to each
D other and both the Acts are in pari materia since the subject-matter of the
1972 Act could have otherwise also come within the ambit of the Central Act
and, therefore, the Kamataka Act, 1972 cannot be considered to deal with
any subject other than acquisition of land. On the general question as to the·
principles of legislation by incorporation or referential legislation, reference
has been made to the decision reported in State of MP. v. M V. Narasimhan
E and the principles contained therein are as hereunder :-

"Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act,
then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent
part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal
or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not
F apply in the following cases:
(a) Where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental
to each other;
(b) Where the two Acts are in pari materia;
G (c) Where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into
the sl')sequent Act also, would-render the subsequent Act wholly
unwtifkable and ineffectual; and
(d) Where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by ·
necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent
H Act."

I
MUNITHIMMAJAH v. STATE [RAJU. J.] 835

Scanning through the nature of legislation, enacted as the Karnataka A
Act, 1972, it has been held that the said Act 1972 clearly comes within the
exceptions stated in M. V. Narasimhar. 's case (supra) for the following reasons:

"Firstly there being no detailed machinery whatsoever in the Kamataka
Act, 1972, that Act cannot be treated as a self-contained or complete
code. Secondly, the Karnataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 B
(as amended by the Kamataka Act, 1961) are supplemental to each
other for unless the Central Act supplements the Kamataka Act, th_e
latter cannot function. Thirdly, these Acts are in pari materia because
the Karnataka Act, 1972 - unlike the Calcutta Act, 1911 and the U.P.
Act, 19~5 - does not deal with any other subject but deals with the C
same subject of land acquisition which otherwise would have fallen
within the ambit of the Central Act, 1894. For the aforesaid reasons,
we are of the view that 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 the payment of amount in respect of land acquired D
under the Act."

The decision in UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and
Anr., [J 998] 2 SCC 467, which has also been noticed and distinguished in
M.ariyappa's case (supra), dealt extensively with the salient principles relevant
as well as governing the construction of legislation by reference and by E
incorporation. On a review of the entire case-law on the subject, this Court
observed that in case of incorporation of provisions of an earlier legislation
in a subsequent statute they get frozen and atrophied and the repeal or
amendment of the earlier legislation does not affect the operation of the
incorporating statute and that the question as to whether a legislation is by F
incorporation or by reference would invariably depend on the language used
in the incorporating statute and other relevant circumstances. Adverting to
the provisions of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1984, it was
held that the Adhiniyam and the Land Acquisition Act cannot be regarded as
supplemental to each other since the Adhiniyam contains ptovisions regarding G
acquisition of land which are complete and self-contained and, therefore, the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable in_ the State of U.P., at
the time of passing of the Adhiniyam in 1965 alone applied and the subsequent
repeal or amendment in the Central Land Acquisition Act unless any of the
exceptional situations indicated in M. V. Narasimhan 's case (supra) can be H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A said to be attracted. Despite coming to such conclusions, on the principles of
law governing the category of referential legislation or legislation by
incorporation those provisions inserted by way of an amendment by the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984 in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
relating to determination and payment of compensation, viz., Section 23(1-
B A) and Sections 23(2) and 28 would be applicable to acquisition for the
purpose of the Adhiniyam under Section 55 of the Adhiniyam by applying
the ratio of a seven-Judge Constitution Bench decision in Nagpur Improvement
Trust and Ors. v. Vithal Rao and Ors., [1973] 1 SCC 500 holding that there
can be no differential treatment in the determination of the principles of
compensation payable merely on the distinction based upon who acquires the
C property, namely, whether the land is acquired for or foby an Improvement
Trust or Municipal Corporation or the Government, because as far as the
owner is concerned, it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired
by one authority or the other for one or other of its purposes.

So far as the B.D.A. Act is concerned, it is not an Act for mere
D acquisition of land but an Act to provide for the establishment of a
Development Authority to facilitate and ensure a planned growth and
development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and acquisition
of lands, if any, therefor is merely incidental thereto. In pith and substance
the Act is one which will squarely fall under, and be traceable to the powers
E of the State Legislature under Entry 5 of List II of the Vllth Schedule and
not a law for acquisition of land like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable
to Entry 42 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the
-
field in respect of which is already occupied by the Central Enactment of
1894, as amended from time to time. If at all, the B.D.A. Act, so far as
acquisition of land for its developmental activities are concerned, in substance
F and effect will constitute a special law providing for acquisition for the
special purposes of the B.D.A. and the same was not also considered to be
part of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It could not also be legitimately
stated, on a reading of Section 36 of the B.D.A. Act that the Kamataka
legislature intended thereby to bind themselves to any future additions or
G amendments, which might be made by altogether a different legislature, be
it the Parliament, to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The procedure for
acquisition under the B.D.A. Act vis-a-vis the Central Act has been analysed
elaborately by the Division Bench, as noticed supra, and, in our view, very
rightly too, considered to constitute a special and self-contained code of its
own and the B.D.A. Act and Central Act cannot be said to be either
H supplemental to each other, or pari materia legislations. That apart, the B.D.A.
MUNITHIMMAIAH v. STATE [RAJU . .l.j 837
Act could not be said to be either wholly unworkable and ineffectual if the A
subsequent amendments to the Central Act are not also imported into
consideration. On an overall consideration of the entire situation also it could
not either possibly or reasonably be stated that the subsequent amendments
to the Central Act get attracted or applied either due to any express provision
or by necessary intendment or implication to acquisitions under the 8.D.A.
• Act. When the B.D.A. Act, expressly provides by specifically enacting the B
circumstances under which and the period of time on the expiry of which
alone the proceedings initiated thereunder shall lapse due to any default, the

- . different circumstances and period of limitation envisaged under the Central
Act, 1894, as amended by the amending Act of 1984 for completing the
proceedings on pain of letting them lapse forever, cannot be imported into C
consideration for purposes of B.D.A. Act without doing violence to the
language or destroying and defeating the very intendment of the State
Legislature expressed by the enactment of its own special provisions in a
special law falling under a topic of legislation exclusively earmarked for the
State Legislature. A scheme formulated, sanctioned and set for implementation
under the B.D.A. Act, cannot be stultified or rendered ineffective and D
unenforceable by a provision in the Central Act, particularly of the nature of
Sections 6 and I I-A, which cannot also on its own force have any application

.
to actions taken under the B.D.A. Act. Consequently, we see no infirmity
whatsoever in the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High
I Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd case (Supra) to exclude the applicability of E
Sections 6 and 11-A as amended and inserted by the Central Amendment Act
I of 1984 to proceedings under the B.D.A. Act. The submissions to the contra
• on behalf of the appellant has no merit whatsoever and do not commend for
our acceptance.

The wall about the inordinate delay or !aches in passing the Award F
cannot be countenanced at the instance of the appellant who contributed
mainly for the same by institution of litigation causing through prohibitory
orders obtained, impediments in the expeditious implementation of the portion
of the Scheme by taking further course of action under the B.D.A. Act,
including the passing of the Award.
G
For all the reasons stated supra, we see no merit in the appeal and the
same shall stand dismissed, but with no costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

H