Beg, J. - (1.) The judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court under appeal before us, after certification of the case as fit for an appeal to us, follows the decision of a Full Bench of that Court in Venkatamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1972 Mys 193 (FB). The Full Bench had held that the date for the determination of compensation under the provisions of Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was to be applied to acquisitions under the City of Mysore Improvement Act 3 of 1903 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mysore Act') was the date of notification under Section 18 of the Act corresponding to Section 6 of the Acquisition Act.
(2.) Recently, we have had to deal with a case in which the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, corresponding substantially with those of the Act now before us, were interpreted by us. The provisions of Sections 14, 16, and 18 of the Mysore Act of 1903, as well as the Bangalore Act of 1945 are identical. And, the provisions of Section 23 of the Mysore Act are identical with those of Section 27 of the Bangalore Act. Therefore, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court considered itself bound by the Full Bench decision of the Myhsore High Court (subsequently the Karnataka High Court) on the provisions of the Mysore Act of 1903 even in interpreting the Bangalore Act of 1945. But, this Court held, in the Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah, Civil Appeals Nos. 644 to 650 of 1974, Decided on 16-8-1976:(reported in AIR 1976 SC 2403) that the Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court, holding that the market value, for the purposes of compensation , must be determined with reference to the date of notification under Section 18 of the Bangalore Act, was erroneous. It, therefore, allowed the appeals from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court which had purported to follow the Full Bench decision on the Mysore Act of 1903.
(3.) The main argument in the appeal before us is that this Court had observed in Narayanaiah's case (supra) that the Full Bench decision related to an interpretation of provisions of an Act as it stood in 1903, when the date of market value, to be determined for purposes of compensation, was the date of notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act. That date was subsequently changed by the Mysore Act 1 of 1927 to that of publication and notification under Section 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act. It is true that this Court did observe that this difference was vital. In doing so, it had accepted the argument put forward on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. But, it had not decided what was the real meaning of provisions of Section 23 of the Mysore Act which correspond with Section27 of the Bangalore Act.;