JUDGMENT

BEG, J.:—Civil Appeals Nos. 644 to 650 of 1974 are by special leave against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The common and principal question of law which arises is : Does the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or the Bangalore Act), applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (Central; Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act), 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 ?

2. The facts of the cases are not really material for the determination of the question of law stated above. A few facts relating to the lands acquired may, however, be mentioned, They have a bearing on a connected question dealt with at the end of this judgment.

3. The seven appeals by special leave arise out of land acquisition proceedings in which the 1st of the preliminary notifications, under Section 16 of the Bangalore Act, took place in the Mysore Gazette from 1960 onwards and, the subsequent notifications, under section 18 of the Bangalore Act, equated by Section 27 (2) of the Bangalore Act with notifications under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act, were made in 1967. All the lands involved in these appeals are situated in Binnamangala Village, Bangalore North Taluk, and are shown to have been acquired for the purposes of a scheme known as Bhinnamangala Lay Out II Stage or Indira Nagar Extension.

4. The Bangalore Act, as its preamble states, it really concerned with the "improvement and future expansion of the City of Bangalore, and for the appointment of a Board of Trustees with special powers of carry out the aforesaid purposes;". As an incident of this improvement and expansion it provides for acquisition of land also. It does not, however, contain a separate code of its own for such acquisitions. But, Section 27 of the Bangalore Act lays down :

"27. Provisions applicable by the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement. - The acquisition otherwise than by agreement of land within or without the City under this Act shall be regulated by the provision, so far as they are applicable, of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and by the following further provisions, namely:-

(1) Upon the passing of a resolution by the Board that an improvement scheme under Section 14 is necessary in respect of any locality, it shall be lawful for any person either generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf and for his servants and workmen, to do all such acts on or in respect of land in that locality as it would be lawful for an officer duly authorised by the Government to act under Section 4 (2) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for his servants and workmen to do thereunder; and the provision contained in Section 5 of the said Act shall likewise be applicable in respect of damage caused by any of the acts first mentioned.

(2) The publication of a declaration under S. 18 shall be deemed to be the publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(3) For the purposes of Section 50 (2) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Board shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned.

(4) After the land vests in the Government under Section 16 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Deputy Commissioner shall, upon payment of the costs of the acquisition, and upon the Board agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the Board, and the land shall thereupon vest in the Board."

5. The Mysore Land Acquisition Act of 1894 exactly reproduces our Central Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. Therefore, the term "Acquisition Act" in this judgment covers references to both the My