Acquisition compensation must follow the procedure in force at the time of proceedings, with market value tied to the preliminary notification date.

Under a statute incorporating the Land Acquisition Act procedure, the preliminary notification stage is treated as equivalent to section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while the declaration stage corresponds to section 6. The Court held that compensation must be assessed by the procedure in force when the acquisition proceedings are taken forward, and no vested right exists in an earlier procedural date unless the special statute says otherwise. Market value was therefore to be determined with reference to the date of the section 16 notification, not the section 18 declaration, and the contrary High Court view was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for acquisition under section 23(1) of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903, the market value for compensation had to be determined with reference to the date of notification under section 18 of that Act or with reference to the date corresponding to section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended.

Analysis: The acquisition provisions of the Mysore Act were held to incorporate the general procedure of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, except where the Mysore Act expressly deviated. A declaration under section 18 of the Mysore Act was treated as equivalent to a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, while the preliminary notification under section 16 of the Mysore Act corresponded to the stage of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that the procedure for fixing compensation must be taken as it exists at the time of the acquisition proceedings, and that no vested right exists in a particular procedural date. The amended procedure replacing the earlier rule based on section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was therefore applicable.

Conclusion: The market value had to be determined with reference to the date of notification under section 16 of the Mysore Act, corresponding to section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not with reference to the date of declaration under section 18.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision was set aside and the matter was sent back for determination of market value in accordance with the rule declared by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute incorporates the general procedure of the Land Acquisition Act, amendments to the procedural law apply to pending acquisition proceedings unless the special statute expressly provides otherwise, and compensation is to be determined by the procedure in force at the time of the acquisition proceedings.

---