1998 (2) TMI 541 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applicable for the purposes of the Karnataka Acquisition of land for House Sites Act, 1972? Held that - Appeals allowed. Sec 11A should be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972 because there is not such provision in the Karnataka Act, 1972 as amended by the Karnataka Act, 1961

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972.
2. Interpretation of the term "mutatis mutandis" in Section 5 of the Karnataka Act, 1972.
3. Doctrine of incorporation versus referential legislation.
4. Whether the Karnataka Act, 1972 is a complete code or requires supplementation by the Central Act, 1894.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellants contended that Section 11-A of the Central Act, 1894, which mandates that an award must be passed within two years, should apply to the Karnataka Act, 1972. The High Court had previously held that Section 11-A does not apply to the Karnataka Act, 1972, based on the doctrine of incorporation. The Supreme Court examined whether the amendments to the Central Act, including Section 11-A, should be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972.

2. Interpretation of "Mutatis Mutandis":
The term "mutatis mutandis" in Section 5 of the Karnataka Act, 1972, was argued to bring in subsequent changes of the Central Act, 1894, into the Karnataka Act. The Supreme Court referred to the definition and previous interpretations of the term, concluding that it allows for necessary changes without altering the essential nature of the provisions. Therefore, the term does not automatically incorporate subsequent amendments to the Central Act into the Karnataka Act.

3. Doctrine of Incorporation vs. Referential Legislation:
The High Court had applied the doctrine of incorporation, holding that the Central Act, 1894, as it stood at the time of the Karnataka Act's enactment, was incorporated into the Karnataka Act. The Supreme Court, however, explored exceptions to this doctrine, such as when two acts are supplemental or in pari materia. The Court concluded that the Karnataka Act, 1972, and the Central Act, 1894, are supplemental and in pari materia, thus falling within exceptions that allow subsequent amendments to be read into the Karnataka Act.

4. Completeness of the Karnataka Act, 1972:
The Supreme Court noted that the Karnataka Act, 1972, contains only seven sections and lacks independent machinery for inquiry, award, and compensation. Therefore, it is not a complete code and relies on the Central Act, 1894, for its functionality. This dependency makes the Karnataka Act, 1972, supplemental to the Central Act, 1894, justifying the incorporation of Section 11-A.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that Section 11-A of the Central Act, 1894, must be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972, due to the latter's reliance on the former for procedural and substantive aspects of land acquisition. The Court declared that the two-year period specified in Section 11-A had expired without an award being passed, causing the land acquisition proceedings, including notifications under Sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Act, 1972, to lapse.

Additional Observations:
The Court clarified that its decision was specific to the applicability of Section 11-A and did not address the incorporation of other amendments to the Central Act, 1894, into the Karnataka Act, 1972. The judgment also distinguished the Karnataka Act, 1972, from other acts like the Bangalore Development Act, 1976, and noted that appeals related to the latter were pending.

Final Judgment:
The appeals were allowed, and it was declared that the notifications issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Act, 1972, had lapsed due to the non-compliance with Section 11-A of the Central Act, 1894.

← Previous Next →