MALIMATH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has, in this writ petition challenged the Notification dt. 21st of June 1963, issued by respondent No. 2, the City Improvement trust Board, Mysore under S. 16 (1) of the City of Mysore Improvement act, 1903 and the Notification dt. 23/24th of August 19g6 (published by the mysore Gazette dt. 22-9-1966), issued by the Government of Mysore under s. 18 (l) and (2) of the Act in so far as they relate to the petitioner's lands bearing S. Nos. 155 and 156 situated in Maragowdanahalli village Mysore taluk. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 the City Improvement Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) prepared a scheme for the formation of a lay out of sites by the side of Bannimantap in the City of Mysore under S. 14 of the City of Mysore Improvement Act 1903 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). After completion of the said scheme the Board issued a Notification as required by S. 16 of the Act. The said Notification recites the fact of a scheme having been made and also contains a statement specifying the lands proposed to be acquired The said Notification was duly published in the Mysore Gazette. Section 16 (2) of the Act contemplates notice being given to every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the Municipality or local body concerned or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which it is proposed to acquire in executing the scheme. Within 30 days of the service of the notice, the person so served is entitled, if he dissents from the acquisition to express his opposition to the same and convey the reasons therefor. Section 17 of the Act requires the Board to consider the representatons received in response to the notice issued under S. 16 and to modify the scheme if considered necessary in the light of the representations received. After inserting in the scheme the modifications as the Board thinks fit, it has to apply to the government for sanction of the scheme. After inserting in the scheme the modifications as the Board thinks fit, it has to apply to the government for sanction of the scheme. After receipt of the sanction of the Government, the Chairman is required under S. 18 of the Act to forward a declaration for Notification under the signature of the Secretary to the Government stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the Board for the purposes of the Scheme is required for a public purpose. The declaration is required to be published in the Mysore Gazette. S. 180) (c) of the Act provides that such a declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and that the Board shall, upon the publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. In this case, after considering the objections received, the Board secured sanction of the Government. Thereafter a Notification was issued under S. 18 (1) (2) of the Act declaring that the properties specified in the schedule are needed for a public purpose, viz. , for the formation of the lay out of the sites by the side of bannimantap. S. ?3 of the Act provides that the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of land within or without the City under this Act shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the further proceedings in regard to determination of compensation have to be taken as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. ( 3 ) THE first submission of Shri S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned counsel for Petitioner is that the Notification issued under S. 18 of the Act in this case is invalid as the petitioner was not served with any notice as required by S. 16 (2) of the Act to enable him to submit his objections to the scheme and proposed acquisition of his lands. The assertion made by the petitioner in his affidavit that no such notice was given, has been controverted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board bv its chairman It is necessary to note that the petitioner has produced as per ext. B along with the writ petition, his objections presented before the board. The assertion made by the petitioner in his affidavit that no such notice was given, has been controverted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board bv its chairman It is necessary to note that the petitioner has produced as per ext. B along with the writ petition, his objections presented before the board. Though it does not bear any date, there cannot be any doubt that it is an objection to a notice received by the petitioner under s. 16 (2) of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioner has specially stated that the objections are In response to the notice under S. 16 (2) of the Act. As the Board had not placed anv material in regard to the service of the notice, we called upon the Board to produce evidence, if they possess any in regard to the service of notice on the petitioner under Section 16 (2) of the Act. The Counsel for the Board has, along with his memo dated the 2nd of November, 1971, produced the copy of the notice served on the petitioner on 18-8-1963. It bears the signature of the petitioner as well as the date of service of notice. We are, therefore, of opinion that the service of notice under S. 16 (2) of the Act on the petitioner is conclusively established in this case. ( 4 ) IT was next urged that as acquisition of land for the Board can be done both under the Land Acquisition Act as well as under the Act, the providing of two materially different procedures for cases falling within the same class or cadre offended Art. 14 of the Constitution The basic assumption made for this argument that the land can be acquired by the board either under the Act or under the Land Acquisition Act is itself incorrect. This Court had occasion to consider a similar question arising under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act. 1945 which contains Ss. 14, 16, 17, 18 and 27 similar to Ss. 14, 16, 17, 18 and 23 respectively of "the Act this Court has clearly pointed out in Achiah Chetty State of Mysore, 1961 Mys. This Court had occasion to consider a similar question arising under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act. 1945 which contains Ss. 14, 16, 17, 18 and 27 similar to Ss. 14, 16, 17, 18 and 23 respectively of "the Act this Court has clearly pointed out in Achiah Chetty State of Mysore, 1961 Mys. L. J. 859 that if acquisition has to be made by the Board for one of the purposes mentioned in the Act, it can only be done under the provisions of the Act and that if on the other hand, the Government desires to acquire any land for any public purpose, it must have recourse to the provisions of the land Acquisition Act. Therefore, so far as the acquisition by the Board is concerned two parallel procedures are not available so as to entitle the board to choose any one of them. Our attention was invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. D. Achaih Chetty, AIR 1969 SC 477 in which the decision of this Court in Achiah Chetty's case (1) was reversed. But, it is necessary to note that the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court solely on the basis of the validation Act that was enacted during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court which had secured the requisite assent of the Present. The view taken by this Court in Achaiah Chetty's case (1) on examination of the relevant provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act and the provisions of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that so far as the Board is concerned, it can acquire lands for the purposes mentioned in the Act only as per the provisions of the Act and not bv resorting to the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act has not been dissented by the Supreme Court. On the contrary, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar situation arising in connection with the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, held that the Trust under the Bihar act can only acquire land for the Trust purposes by resorting only to such of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as are modified and incorporated by a reference in the Act. Following the said decision of the Supreme court, this Court in the case of M. Laxmiah v. State of Mysore, (1966)1 Mys. Following the said decision of the Supreme court, this Court in the case of M. Laxmiah v. State of Mysore, (1966)1 Mys. L. J. 308 held that the Board under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act can acquire land for the purposes mentioned in the Act only under the provisions of the Act. certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act having been incorporated in the Act itself for the purpose of acquisition by the Board under that Act. As the same principle was laid down by this Court in achiah Chetty's case (1), there is no substance in the contention that there is a conflict between the decision in Achiah Chetty's case (1) and M. Laxmiah's case (3) so far as this aspect is concerned. As the provisions of the city of Bangalore Improvement Act are analogous to the provisions of the Act, the principle laid down in the said decision equally governs the cases arising under the City of Mysore Improvement Act. Shri Venkalaranga iyengar. however, tried to distinguish the said decisions by pointing out that whereas under the City of Banpalore Improvement Act, 1945 there is S. 52 which provides that in the event of repugnancy between the provisions of that Act and the provisions of any other Act in force in mysore, the latter shall be void to the extent of such repugnancy, there is no such corresponding provision available in the Act. But, it is necessary to note that in Achiah Chetty's case (1), this Court came to the conclusion that the Board could, acquire land for the purpose of the Act only by resorting to the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act even without the aid of S. 52 of that Act In Laxminh's case (3) this Court pointed out that S. 52 was enacted only as an abundant caution. That provision comes into operation only in the event of there being a repugnancy between the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act and any other law in the State. That provision obviously is of no assistance for ascertaining as to whether two procedures are available to the Board for acquisition by the Board. That provision comes into operation only in the event of there being a repugnancy between the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act and any other law in the State. That provision obviously is of no assistance for ascertaining as to whether two procedures are available to the Board for acquisition by the Board. As S. 52 has obviously no bearing on that aspect of the matter, the absence of a provision similar to S. 52 in the City of mysore Improvement Act does not in any way affect the applicability of the principle laid down by this Court in Achiah Chetty's (1) case and lakshrmah's case (3) on the question as to whether two procedures are available for acquisition by the Board, one under the Act and another under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act. We have no hesitation in holding that so far as the acquisition of land by the Board for the purpose of the act is concerned, it can only do so under the Act which has incorporated into it certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the complaint regarding violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution fails. ( 5 ) IT was next urged that as S. 23 of the Act provides that the acquisition shall be regulated by the provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act and by the provisions contained in the Section, s. 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Art should have been followed for the acquistion of land by the Board under the Act. Dealing with a similar contention raised in a case arising under the City of Bangalore Improvement act, this Court pointed out in a decision reported in M. Manicklal v. State of Mysore, (1967) 2 Mys. L. J. 239, that the field occupied by Ss. 16 and 18 of the Act being the same as one occupied by Ss. 4, 5 (A) and 6 of the Land Acquisition act, the question of complying with S. 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act does not arise. As a detailed procedure for consideration of the objections to the acquisition has been prescribed under Ss. 16 and 18 of the Act, the provisions of S. 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act which also deal with consideration of the objection to the acquisition does not become applicable to acquisition by the Board under the Act. As a detailed procedure for consideration of the objections to the acquisition has been prescribed under Ss. 16 and 18 of the Act, the provisions of S. 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act which also deal with consideration of the objection to the acquisition does not become applicable to acquisition by the Board under the Act. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the acquisition is bad for not following the procedure prescribed under S. 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 6 ) IT was lastly urged that the Notification dated the 21st of June, 1963 was issued under S. 16 on the assumption that the two lands of the petitioner are agricultural lands, whereas in fact the petitioner had secured necessary permission from the revenue authorities to use the said lands for a non-agricultural purpose, viz. , for the purpose of putting up industries on the lands. It is necessary to note that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for securing permission to use the lands for non-agricultural purposes were pending on the date on which the Notification was issued under S. 16 of the Act, and the said proceedings terminated in a final order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 29th of March 1967. As the Board had contested these proceedings, it was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner was attempting to secure permission to use the lands for non-agricultural purpose, such as putting up industries thereon. That the petitioner intends to use the lands for a non-agricultural purpose viz. , for putting up industries would not come in the way of the Board acquiring the lands for the purpose of the scheme prepared and approved under the Act. The declaration made in this case under S. 18 of the Act after following the prescribed procedure is unassailable. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .