Special acquisition law governs valuation by the preliminary notification date, and additional evidence in appeal needs strict Rule 27 compliance.

Under a special acquisition statute that applies the Land Acquisition Act only so far as applicable, compensation is valued by reference to the special preliminary notification date where the special procedure replaces the section 4(1) stage of the general Act. The text also states that a judgment concerning nearby acquired land is not automatically admissible as additional evidence in appeal; Order 41 Rule 27 requires recorded reasons showing necessity or substantial cause, and the other side must have an opportunity to rebut the material. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the existing evidence and admissibility of the judgment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the market value for compensation in compulsory acquisition was to be determined with reference to the date of the preliminary notification under section 16 of the Bangalore Act or the later declaration under section 18; (ii) Whether a previous judgment relating to nearby acquired land could be admitted as additional evidence in appeal under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether, under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the market value for compensation in compulsory acquisition was to be determined with reference to the date of the preliminary notification under section 16 of the Bangalore Act or the later declaration under section 18.

Analysis: The Bangalore Act did not contain a separate compensation code, and section 27 made the general provisions of the Land Acquisition Act applicable so far as they were applicable. The scheme of sections 16 and 18 of the Bangalore Act corresponded in substance to the preliminary notification and declaration stages under sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and section 27(2) expressly equated a declaration under section 18 with a declaration under section 6. Since section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act fixed market value by reference to the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1), and the special procedure under section 16 displaced the general procedure under section 4(1), the relevant date for valuation had to be located with reference to the special preliminary notification under section 16. The words 'so far as they are applicable' brought in the general compensation provision, while excluding only those general provisions displaced by the special scheme.

Conclusion: The market value had to be determined with reference to the date of the notification under section 16 of the Bangalore Act, not the later notification under section 18.

Issue (ii): Whether a previous judgment relating to nearby acquired land could be admitted as additional evidence in appeal under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Judgments not inter partes are not automatically admissible merely because they concern nearby land, and their evidentiary value depends on relevance under the Evidence Act and on satisfaction of the conditions in Order 41, Rule 27. The appellate court was required to record reasons showing that the additional evidence was needed to enable it to pronounce judgment or for some other substantial cause. That safeguard had not been observed, and the opposite party was also required to be given an opportunity to rebut the material if admitted.

Conclusion: The judgment could not be treated as properly admitted additional evidence on the existing record, and the question of its admissibility had to be reconsidered on remand.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the matters were sent back for fresh decision on evidence already on record and on the admissibility of the additional judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special acquisition statute adopts the general land acquisition law only so far as applicable, and expressly substitutes its own preliminary notification procedure for the statutory stage corresponding to section 4(1), compensation under the general law is to be valued by reference to the special preliminary notification date, while additional evidence in appeal can be received only on satisfaction of the conditions prescribed by Order 41, Rule 27.

---