9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 dated 23.3.1995 was affirmed. The point concerns the applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Central Act, 1984) for the purposes of the Karnataka Acquisition of land for House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Karnataka Act, 1972) (Act 18 of 1973). Appellants contend that the new Section 11-A is attracted to proceedings for land acquisition under the Karnataka Act, 1972 while the respondents contend that the Section 11-A is not so attracted. The High Court has held, in the above decisions that Section 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 10 acres 27 guntas. The said land was endowed to Sri Rama Devaru. Under Section 5 of the Karnataka Land Reforms 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to section 5 of the Karnataka Act of 1972, which stated that the procedure of the Central Act in respect of inquiry and award by the Dy. Commissioner, the reference to Court, the apportionment of amount and the payment of amount, applied. Then the High Court observed: "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 that the Central Act was adopted generally with respect to a subject 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". The High Court then observed that this aspect is covered by a decision rendered by the same Court under the Karnataka Development Act, 1976 in Krishna Moorthy Vs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not contain the full machinery for 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 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 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: We shall initially refer to the provisions contained in the karnataka 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 of granting house sites to weaker sections of the people in the State and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Acquisition (Karnataka Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 shall, mutatis mutatis apply in respect of enquiry 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." 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. From the above, it will be seen that the Karnataka Act, 1972 contains only seven sections and that it does not contain any independent machinery or provisions for the purpose of inquiry, reference, award and apportionment and payment of compensation. Section 5 of Karnataka Act, 1972 speaks of amendments to the Central Act, 1894 by the Karnataka Act 1961: Section 5 of the Karnataka Act, 1972 refer to the application of the Central Act, 1894 as amended by the Karnataka Act, 1961. These amendments concern the following section of the Central Act, 1894 - Sections 1(2), Section 3 (aa), (d), (e), (ee), (f), proviso (iii) (g), (b); (1) 4(1A), 4(2), (3) (4, 5-5A(1), (2), (6) (1A), (2) - (Section 8 is omitted), 9(2), (3),(4), 10(1), addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the same, but to be altered when necessary, as to names, offices and the like..... Extension of an earlier Act mutatis mutatis 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". If, therefore, the words mutatis mutatis merely permit 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 Karnataka Act, 1961. Therefore the contention for the appellant that subsequent changes made in the Central Act after 1972 also get into the karnataka Act, 1972, cannot be accepted. That question again depends upon whether the Central Act, 1894 has been incorporated into the Karnataka Act, 1972 or falls within the exceptions to the said principle or whether Section 5 is to be treated as a pice of referential legislation . Incorporation of referential legislation and exception ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs which a Municipal Corporation or a Municipal Council has under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 or the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, as the case may be. Chandrachud, 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 Authority shall have the powers which a Municipal Corporation or a 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 own for the exercise of the power of taxation. Further, the three Acts were supplemental to each other. Ujagar Prints Vs. Union of India [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 there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical). Now both these Acts of 1903 and 1945 contained provisions which require compensation to be paid with reference to the second notification which publishes the 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 the Central Act). Question arose in two cases, one under each of these 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 Vs. H.Narayaniah [1976 (4) SCC 9]. This case presents no difficulty because the said Act was passed in 1945 and by that, the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 already stood amended in 1927. The reference in Section 27 of the 1945 Act to the Mysore Act of 1894 therefore 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 paid only as per the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the latter Act as they stood "at the time of acquisition" had to 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 rulings of this Court are more in point and are directly applicable to the Karnataka Act, 1972. But, before we draw our final conclusions, it is necessary to refer to three more rulings, 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 Vs. Hindustan Coop. Society Ltd. [AIR 1931 PC 148]. There the provisions of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (Act 13/1911) fell for consideration. That Act coupled with its schedule contained provisions not only for issuing relevant notification in regard to acquisition but also for reference to a Tribunal for passing an award relating to compensation. By Act 18 of 1911 a right of appeal was given to the High Court against the Award of the Tribunal. Under the Act, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.J. Ch. 372] to the effect that it will not be possible to read the provisions of an earlier Act into a latter Act, if the earlier Act "gives in itself a complete rule on the subject matter" It was also observed that the provision in Section 70(a) of the Calcutta Act, 1911 deliberately excluding Section 54 of the Central Act, 1894 was "an indication of the local legislature s intention that there should be, under the special Code applicable to the Improvement Trust, no appeals beyond the High Court". In other words, two reasons were given by their lordships as to why section 26(2) of the Central Act, 1894 could not be read into the Calcutta Act, 1911. One was that reading Section 26(2) of the Central Act, 1894 into the Calcutta Act, 1911 would be repugnant to Section 70(a) of the Calcutta Act, 1911 which expressly excluded Section 54 of the Central Act, 1894 from the purview of the Calcutta Act. The other was that such telescoping would not be permissible if the latter statute which, in certain respects, referred to an earlier statute, was otherwise a complete Code by itself. This is clear from the fact that the Calcutta Act, 1911 Contains 177 sections and a schedule, Chapt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 1948, the Allahabad High Court had taken the view that the notification under Section 32 (1) corresponding to declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Central Act need not be issued within 3 years of the notification under Section 28(1) corresponding to section 4(1) of the Central Act. In cases arising after 1948, it was also held by the Allahabad High Court that Section 11-A was not applicable to the UP Act. Gauri Shankar s case related to the 3 year rule in the proviso to Section 6 of the Central Act. K.Ramaswamy, J. held (para 8) that the principle of incorporation applied and that the provisions of Section 28, 32 of the UP Act, 1965 were a separate and complete code, that Section 55 read with clause (2) of the Schedule, which contained the need for issuing the preliminary and final notification under sections 28 and 32 of the UP Act, formed an integral scheme (para 25). The Schedule amended Sections 4, 6, 17 and 23 of the Central Act, 1894. It was pointed out that Section 28(2) and Section 32 (1) related to the publication of notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ateria with the L.A. Act because the Adhinyam 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 Vs. Hindustan Cooperative Society Ltd. [AIR 1931 PC 149], Gauri Shankar s case [1994 (1) SCC 92] and Jainul Islam s case [1998 (1) Scale 185], are clearly distinguishable. As pointed out earlier the Karnataka 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 modification relating to acquisition and payment of compensation. The Act has no provision for a separate inquiry or award or reference to a Tribunal, or a machinery for payment of compensation of apportionment. The 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 the payment of amount 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, 1965. We are of the view that the Karnataka Act, 1972 clearly comes within the exceptions stated in M.V. Narasimhan s case for the following reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
