Important Point
Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be read in to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972.

Headnote:Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972-Section 5-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 11-A-Applicability of Section 11-A of Central Act to Karnataka Act-Whether amendments made in 1984 to the Central Act 1894 including Section 11-A have to be read into Karnataka Act, 1972 so far as enquiry, award, reference to court, apportionment of amount and payment of amount in respect of land acquired under Karnataka Act, 1972-Held, yes-Proceedings initiated under Karnataka Act would lapse on the expiry of prescribed period under Section 11-A of the Central Act.
       Held : If, the words ‘mutatis mutandis’ 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 piece of ‘referential legislation’. (Para 16)
       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 modifications 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 or 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 U.P. Act, 1965. (Paras 34)
        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 reasons:
       Firstly, there being no detailed machinery whatsoever in the Karnataka Act, 1972, that Act cannot be treated as a self-contained or complete Code. Secondly, the Karnataka Act, 1972 and the Central Act, 1894 (as amended by the Karnataka Act, 1961) are supplemental to each other for unless the Central Act supplements the Karnataka Act, the 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, 1965-does not deal with any other subject but deals with the 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 under the Act. (Para 35)
       (ii) In the instant case Notification dated 19.12.1983 under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Act, 1972 was published in gazette on 9.2.1984 - Thereafter notification under Section 3(4) was published in gazette on 14.3.1985-Appellant filed writ on 17.6.1985 and obtained stay on 1.7.1985-Writ dismissed on 31.7.1990-Fresh writ filed on 10.1.1992 and stay order obtained on 1.2.1992 and writ was dismissed-Writ appeals was dismissed on 11.6.1997.
       Held : Even if the period of stay orders is excluded, the position is that the 2 years period specified in Section 11-A has expired inasmuch as till now no award has been passed. The appellants are said to be in possession still. (Para 4)
       Admittedly, the prescribed period under Section 11-A has elapsed and it is stated that even now, the award is not passed. Therefore, it is clear that the conditions of Section 11-A are violated, and accordingly, the entire land acquisition proceedings including the notifications under Section 3(1) and 3(4) of the Karnataka Act, 1972 lapse. We declare accordingly. (Para 36)

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - Leave granted.

2. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal Nos. 8451-53 of 1996 dated 11.6.1997 by which, the High Court dismissed the Writ appeals and confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 23657 to 23659 of 1992 dated 23.7.1996. In so doing, the High Court followed the judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1821 of 1995 dated 10.6.1997 (Iswarappa & Another v. The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar & Others) whereby the judgment in Writ Petition No. 16302 of 1987 dated 23-3-95 was affirmed.

3. The point concerns the applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Central Act, 1894) 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 :

4. 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 19.12.1983 under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Act, 1972 was published in the gazette on 9.2.1984. Thereafter notification under Section 3(4) was published in the gazette on 14.3.1985. On 17.6.1985, the 3rd appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9079 of 1985 and stay of dispossession was granted on 1.7.1985. Appellants 1 and 2 filed Writ Petitions and similar orders were passed on 8.7.1985 and 9.7.1985. On 31.7.1990, Writ petition of 3rd appellant was dismissed. On 1.2.1991, Writ Petitions of appellants 1 and 2 were also dismissed. Thereafter, fresh Writ Petition Nos. 23657 to 59 of 1992 were filed on 10.1.1992 and stay of dispossession was again granted on 1.2.1992 provided that possession was not taken. On 23.7.1996, the said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the Writ Appeals Nos. 8451-53, the Court again ordered on 30.9.1996 stay of dispossession. On 11.6.1997, the Writ appeals were dismissed. In case it is to be held that Section 11-A of the Central Act, 1894 is to be applied to the Karnataka Act, 1972, even if the period of stay orders is excluded, the position is that the 2 years period specified in Section 11-A has expired inasmuch as till now no award has been passed. The appellants are said to be in possession still.

The High Court holds section 11-A not applicable because of doctrine of ‘incorporation’:

5. The acquisition here is under the Karnataka Act, 1972. The contention of the appellants in the High Court is that, because of Section 5 of the Karnataka Act adopting the Central Act of 1894 in certain respects, Section 11-A introduced in the Central Act in 1984 is applicable and the proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court has followed its earlier Judgment in Iswarappa and another v. Deputy Commission and others (W.A. No. 1821 of 1995) dated 10.6.1997 and held that Section 11-A of the Central Act, 1894 cannot be read into the Karnataka Act, 1972, even if the award was not passed within 2 years as stipulated in Section 11-A. The High Court, after referring to Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Act, 1972 observed:

“The provisions of Sections 3 and 4 appear to be self-contained so far as the procedure for acquisition of the land is concerned. The provisions of the Central Act 1 of 18

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 240

Important PointSection 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be read in to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972.

Cases Referred (9)

Important Point
Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be read in to the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972.