1976 (8) TMI 149 - SC - Indian Laws

Does the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquisitions of land in Bangalore require the determination of market value, for purposes of awarding compensation, on a date corresponding to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act or to the date corresponding to that of the notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act? Held that - The Karnataka High Court had, however, not complied with provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. which require that an Appellate Courts should be satisfied that the additional evidence is required to enable them either to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It had recorded no reasons to show that it had considered the requirements of Rule 27, Order 41, of the C.P.C. we are of opinion that, the High Court should have recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for some substantial reason. And if it found it necessary to admit it, an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to rebut any inference arising from its existence by leading other evidence. The result is that we allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court and direct it to decide the cases afresh on evidence on record, so as to determine the market value of the land acquired on the date of the notification under section 16 of the Bangalore Act. It will also decide the question, after affording parties opportunities to lead necessary evidence, whether the judgment, sought to be offered as additional evidence, could be admitted. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of market value date for compensation under the Bangalore Improvement Act.
2. Applicability of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for compensation.
3. Admissibility of additional evidence in appellate proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Market Value Date for Compensation:
The principal question of law was whether the market value for compensation should be determined based on the date of the notification under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, as applied to the Bangalore Improvement Act.

- The Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, incorporates provisions from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but does not have a separate code for land acquisition.
- The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had followed a Full Bench decision of the Mysore High Court, which held that the market value should be determined based on the notification under Section 18 of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903, corresponding to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- The Supreme Court noted that the Bangalore Act was enacted in 1945, and thus references to the Land Acquisition Act should be construed with the amendments made up to that date.
- The Court found that the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court overlooked the distinction between the 1903 Mysore Act and the 1945 Bangalore Act.
- The Supreme Court held that the notification under Section 16 of the Bangalore Act corresponds to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and thus the market value should be determined based on the date of the notification under Section 16 of the Bangalore Act.

2. Applicability of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for Compensation:
The Court examined whether Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which governs the determination of compensation, applies to the Bangalore Improvement Act.

- Section 27 of the Bangalore Act incorporates the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for land acquisition, except where the Bangalore Act provides otherwise.
- The Supreme Court found that Section 27 of the Bangalore Act does not exclude the application of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
- The Court emphasized that the absence of a separate compensation provision in the Bangalore Act indicates that the general provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including Section 23(1), apply.
- The Court held that the market value for compensation should be determined based on the date of the notification under Section 16 of the Bangalore Act, as per Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. Admissibility of Additional Evidence in Appellate Proceedings:
The Karnataka High Court had admitted a judgment as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which was challenged.

- The High Court admitted the judgment on the grounds that it was not available during the trial and that it related to adjacent land acquired under the same scheme.
- The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, which regulate the admissibility of judgments.
- The Court emphasized that judgments not inter partes are generally irrelevant unless they fall under specific provisions of the Evidence Act, such as Section 13.
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have recorded reasons for admitting the additional evidence and provided an opportunity for the appellant to rebut it.
- The Court directed the High Court to decide the cases afresh, considering the evidence on record and determining the admissibility of the additional judgment as evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court, and directed the High Court to re-evaluate the cases based on the evidence on record. The market value of the land acquired should be determined based on the date of the notification under Section 16 of the Bangalore Act, and the High Court should decide on the admissibility of the additional judgment after providing opportunities for both parties to present evidence. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →