S.A. JALALUDDINversusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

A                               S.A. JALALUDDIN
                                          v.
           BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

                               FEBRUARY 27, 2003

B         [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]


          Urban Development:

          The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945; Section 18(J)(a)(b) and
C (c)-Notification prescribing certain period of limitation for issuance of
    declaration under the Central Land Acquisition Act-Challenged as barred by
    limitation under the provisions of Karnataka Act-Held: it is impermissible to
    read into the provision of the Improvement Act, the provision of the Land
    Acquisition Act, so as to override or nulli.fY such provision of acquisition
D   under the Improvement Act-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Land Acquisition
    (Karnataka Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967.

          Appellant had challenged the Notifications issued by the respondent
    under Section 18(1)(a) of the City of Banglore Improvement Act (Act) and
    consequently the acquisition proceedings. The Notification prescribed
E   limited period of two years for issuance of a declaration under Section 6
    of the Acquisition Act which was allegedly barred by limitation under the
    provisions of the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Amendment and
    Validation) Act (Karnataka Act). High Court rejected the challenge. Hence
    the present appeal.

F         It was contended for the appellant that since declaration under the
    provision of the Act was to be considered as declaration under the Land
    Acquisition Act, the amendments in the Land Acquisition Act imposing
    limitation on the exercise of power of acquisition would enure to the benefit
    of land owner; and that irrespective of acquisition proceedings under any
G   of the Act, the safeguards available under the Central Land Acquisition
    Act should also be made available to the land owner irrespective of the
    purpose of the special law enacted for acquisition of land.

          Dismissing the appeals, the Court

          HELD: I. I. The declaration published under Section 18(1)(c) of the
H                                       410
        I
       ;.\
                      S.A. JALALUDDIN v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY             411

             City of Bangalore Improvement Act has a validity period of seven years         A
             for being persued for further action under Section 27 of the Act. Section
             27 also stipulates that the Land Acquisition Act and the provisions noticed
....         thereunder are attracted to proceedings under the Act "so far as they are
             applicable", and consequently in respect of the matters wherein the City
             of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 has its own period of limitation or
             restrictions .on the exercise of powers under the Act or specific provisions   B
             it is impermissible to read into the provisions of the Improvement Act,
             the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, so as to override or nullify
             the provisions of the Improvement Act. (414-F-HI

                  The State of Karnataka and Ors., (20021 4 SCC 326; Nagpur                 C
             Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and Ors. etc. etc., (2002) 7 SCC 657 and
             The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H.
             Narayanaiah etc. etc., (197711 SCR 178, referred to.

                   1.2. This Court has in some of the similar cases specifically declined
             to read into the limitations on the exercise of powers importing such          D
             limitations under the Central Act, into the special enactments the position
             was made clear in unmistakable terms that so far as the r'tyment of
             compensation is concerned, there could be no different yardstick based
             on the purpose of acquisition or the provisions of law under which it is
             acquired. The ratio of the decision in *Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr.
             v. Vithal Rao and Ors. was not extended beyond its purpose, to apply the       E
             principle or the proposition of law sought to be raised to import a
             limitation on the very exercise of power of acquisition for and under the
             special and specific laws which has to be adjudged with particular
             reference, in the instant case, to only the City of Bangalore Improvement
             Act, 1945. (415-C-EI                                                           F
                 *Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. v. Vithal Rao and Ors., (1973) I
             sec 500, distinguished.
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10910 of
             1996.                                                                          CJ
                  From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.95 of the Kamataka High
             Court in R.F.A. No. 232 of 1984.

                     S. Ravindra Bhat for the Appellant.

                     Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Girish    H
    412                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A   Kumar and Ankur S. Kulkarni for Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a Division
    Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 26th September, 1995 in RF A No.
B   232 of 1984 whereunder a challenge made to the Notification dated 5-11-
    1971 issued under Section 18(1)(a) of The City of Bangalore Improvement
    Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as barred by limitation under
    the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Karantaka Amendment and Validation)
    Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Karnataka Act" which by an
C   amendment to the Central Land Acquisition Act prescribed a period of two
    years of limitation for issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the
    Acquisition Act and consequently without the authority of law came to be
    repelled. To be more specific· as could be seen from the judgment under
    appeal the contention of the appellant was that by virtue of Section 27 of the
    Act the proceedings initiated thereunder for acquisition of land are to be
D   regulated by the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and having
    regard to the said amendment to the Land Acquisition Act by the Karnataka
    Act and the proviso introduced to Section 6 to the effect that no declaration
    could be made or issued in respect of any particular land covered by a
    notification under sub-section (I) of Section 4, after the expiry of two years
    from the notification under Section 4(1) or from the commencement of the
E   Amendment Act. Hence, the plea was that the Board should not have issued
    the final notification dated 5-11-1971 and consequently acquisition
    proceedings, particularly, the declarations under Section 18 have been rendered
    invalid and unforceable. The Division Bench of the High Court after adverting
    to the catena of cases including the one reported in [1977] 1 SCR 178. The
p   Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah
    etc. etc. has chosen to reject the challenge. Not. satisfied, the appellant have
    come before this Court.

           Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
    tried to contend that having regard to the. provisions of the Act which by
G   virtue of stipulation contained in Section 18(l)(c) and 27(2) deemed the
    declaration under Section 18 of the Act to be a declaration under Section 6
    of the Land Acquisition Act, the amendments incorporated to the Central
    Land Acquisition Act imposing a limitation on the exercise of power of
    acquisition itself would enure to the benefit ofland owner. Argued the learned
H   -::ounsel further that the Bangalore Act under consideration, by means of
       S.A. .IALALUDDIN v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                   413
reference refers and adopts the provisions of the Acquisition Act and, therefore,    A
the principle laid down in the line of cases pertaining to legislation by
incorporation will have no relevance in adjudging the challenge by the
appellant in this case. Accordingly, the learned counsel tried to distinguish
the earlier decision noticed by the Division Bench as well as the decision
reported in [2002] 4 SCC 326 Munithimmaiah v. The State of Karnataka and             B
Ors., and [2002] 7 SCC 657 (Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and
Ors., etc. etc.) A submission was also made placing reliance upon the decision
of this Court in [1973] I SCC 500 (Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. v.
Vitha/ Rao and Ors.), that so far as the citizen/land owner is concerned it is
immaterial whether the acquisition is under one Act or the other or what
purpose and that the safeguards available under the Central Land Acquisition         C
Act, should be equally rendered available to all kinds of acquisition irrespective
of the purpose or the special law concerned for acquisition of the land of a
citizen.

      Per contra, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, the learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondent's placed strong reliance upon the decision of D
this Court reported in [2002] 4 SCC 326, (Munithimmaiah v. The State of
Karnataka and Ors.,) [2002] 7 SCC 657, (Nagpur Improvement Trust v.
Vasantrao and Ors., etc. etc.) as also the decision in [1977] I SCR 178 (The
Land Acquisition Officer, City Improve Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah etc.
etc.) In our view, it is unnecessary for us to undertake an extensive E
consideration of the relevant principle which. should guide a decision in this
case since we find such principles to have been stated and re:stated in a series
of decisions, including the two latest pronouncements as noticed above.

      The decisions in [2002] 7 SCC 657 (Nagpur Improvement Trust v.
Vasant Rao and Ors.,) almost a similar challenge came to be projected and            F
rejected as herein under:

        59. "So far as the acquisition under the Nagpur Act and the U.P. Act
      . are concerned they have been challenged on the ground that the
        nptification corresponding to the declaration under Section 6 of the
        Land Acquisition Act was made more than 3 years after the expiry             G
        of the date of the publication of the notification corresponding to the
        notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This was on
        the assumption that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were
        not incorporated in the State Acts but were merely referred to and the
        amendment of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by insertion of           H
    414                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A           proviso thereto by Act I I of 1967, would apply to the acquisitions.
            We have already held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
            as modified by the State Acts and the Schedule thereto stand
            incorporated in the State Acts and, therefore, the subsequent
            amendments of Section 6 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and
            Validation) Act, 1967 (Act 13 of 1967) or by Act 68 of I 984, will
B           have no effect on the acquisition made under the State Acts."

           That apart, we are of the view, that the City of Bangalore Improvement
    Act, I 945 provides for formulating a scheme as also the manner in which it
    should be published and carried out, in execution. Section I 8 provides that
C   after the sanction of the Government has been obtained for the scheme, the
    Chairman of the Board 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 in question was proposed to be acquired by the Board and
    the purposes of the scheme. It 1s further ordained therein that the declaration
    shall be published in the Mysore Gazette and shall state the limits within
D   which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, with the details of the
    particulars spe.cified therein and that the said declaration shall be conclusive
    evidence that the land is needed for the public purpose and the Board shall
    upon the publication of the said declaration shall proceed to execute the
    same. Section I 9 provides that where within a period of 7 years from the date
E   of publication in the Mysore Gazette of the declaration in clause (b) of sub-.
    section (I) of Section I 8, the Board fails to execute the scheme, substantially
    the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of Section 27 shall become in
    operative. The sum and substance of it as also the consequences flowing
    from the said stipulation is that the declaration published under Section I 8( I)(c)
    has a validity period of seven years for being pursued for further action under
F   Section 27 of the Act. While that be the position, it is futile for the appellants
    to contend that the declaration being not published within two years of the
    period specified in the Land Acquisition Act, the proceedings under the
    Improvement Act shall lapse and be of no effect Section 27 also stipulates
    that the Land Acquisition Act and the provisions noticed thereunder are
G   attracted to proceedings· under the Act "so far as they are applicable", and
    consequently in respect of the matters wherein the City of Bangalore
    Improvement Act, I ::l45 has its own period of limitation or restrictions on the
    exercise of powers under the Act or specific provisions it is impermissible to
    read into the provisions of the Improvement Trust Act, the provisions of the
    Land Acquisition Act, so as to override or nullify the provisions of the
H    Improvement Trust Act.
         S.A. JALALUDDIN v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY              415
       We are also not persuaded to contenance the challenge based on, the A
decision reported in [ 1973] I SCC 500 Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr.
v. Vithal Rao and Ors. The very reasoning therein of the Constitution Bench
of this Court was in the particular context of deprivation of the property of
a citizen without payment of the due compensation by high lighting the fact
that the right of the owner, who comes to be deprived of his property, to
receive compensation should not depend upon the purpose or the law which B
enables such acquisition. This principle cannot be extended dehors the ratio
or rationale behind it for all purposes, to the extent of contending that all
acquisitions must be under the same law and under same procedural formalities,
dehors the special law to meet different contingencies or deal with various
exigencies of situation. As a matter of fact, even in the later line of cases C
wherein this Court has specifically declined to read into the limitations on the
exercise of powers importing such limita.tions under the Central Act, into the
special enactments the position was made clear in unmistakable terms that so
far as the payment of compensation in concerned, there could ue no different
y&rdstick based on the purpose of acquisition or the provisions of law under
which it is acquired. The ratio of the decision in [1973] I sec 500 (supra) D
was not extended beyond its purpose, to apply the principle or the proposition
of law sought to be raised to import a limitation on the very exercise of
power of acquisition for and under the special and specific laws which as we
have observed earlier has to be adjudged with particular reference in this
case, to only the City of Bangalore Improvement Trust Act, 1945.                 E
      For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit in the challenge made
to the decision of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and .stands
dismissed. No costs.

S.K.S.                                                    Appeal dismissed.     p