VENKATARAMIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE question of law referred to the Full Bench in all the above cases is as follows:"whether the relevant date for determining the market value of the property acquired under the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (Mysore Act III of 1903) is the date of notification under S. 16 of that Act, or the date of notification issued under S. 18 of the Act, or the date of taking possession of property. " ( 2 ) THE undisputed facts in all these cases are thus: That all the buildings and lards acquired in these cases are situate in Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore city, in an area of commercial importance. These buildings and lands were acquired under the provisions of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (Mysore Act III of 1903) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for purposes of formation of a straight road from the Statue Square to the district Office in Mysore City. In all these cases the notification under s. 16 of the Act was issued in the year 1945 and the notification under s. 18 of that Act was issued in the year 1959. The possession of the lands and buildings in question were however taken from the claimants on subsequent dates. There was therefore an interval of over fourteen years between the date of the notification under S. 16 and the date of the notification under S. 18 of the Act and an interval of nearly twenty years between the date of the notification under S. 16 of the Act and the date of taking possession of the properties. The market value of the properties rose steeply from the year 1945 onwards. Some of the persons whose properties were acquired under the aforesaid notifications filed writ petitions before this Court questioning the validity of the notifications in WP. 257 of 1965 and connected cases. One of the grounds raised in those writ petitions was that the acquisition of the properties nearly fifteen to twenty years after the issue of notification under S. 16 of the Act was illegal and if the notifications acquiring the property were held to be legal, then the compensation should be awarded to the claimants on the basis of the market value of the properties on the date on which the notification under s. 18 of the Act was issued. In those writ petitions, the validity of the notifications was upheld. But with regard to the question of compensation, this Court observed in its ojrder dt. October 14, 1966, as follows :"the question whether the notification under S. 16 of the Act should be treated as equivalent to a notification under S. 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act and the compensation should be based on the market value as on the date of the notification under S. 16 or whether the compensation should be based on the market value as on the date of the notification under S. 18 of the Act or whether it should be based on the market value as on some other date, are all matters to be raised and contended before the Court in those references. Those questions do not arise for decision at this stage in these petitions and those questions are, therefore, left open. " ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the references made to the Court for determination of compensation payable to the owners of the acquired properties were disposed of by the Civil Judge, Mysore, awarding compensation for the lands and buildings which formed the subject matter of the above appeals on the basis of their market value as on the date of the notification under S. 16 the Act. In other words, even though the notification under S. 18 was issued in 1959 and possession of the properties was taken some years thereafter, the claimants were awarded compensation for the acquired properties on the basis oi their market value in the year 1945. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, the claimants filed the above appeals before this Court. When the appeals came up before a division Bench of this Court, it was contended on behalf of the claimants that the lower Court had committed an error in adopting the market value of the properties as on the date 01 the notification under S. 16 of the Act, as the basis for awarding compensation. On behalf of the Special Land acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore, it was contended that in several cases decided by this Court including MFA. On behalf of the Special Land acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore, it was contended that in several cases decided by this Court including MFA. 234 of 1969 it had been held that the relevant date for purpose of awarding compensation was the date of the notification under S. 16 of the Act and therefore the basis adopted by the lower Court was right. The Division bench after hearing the parties was of the opinion that although this court had decided some cases on the basis of the market value of the properties as on the date of the notification under S. 16, in those cases the question had not been raised in the present form. The Division Bench was also of the opinion that there was no compelling reason to accept the said view. Hence, the Division Bench under S. 7 (1) of the Mysore High court Act, 1961, referred the above question of law to a Full Bench of this Court for its opinion. ( 4 ) IN order to decide the question referred to the Full Bench, it is necessary to briefly refer to some of the provisions governing the cases. The Act under which the properties in question were acquired for the benefit of the City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the Board), was enacted in the year 1903. The object was to make provision for improvement! and future expansion of the City of mysore as well as for the appointment of a Board of Trustees with power to carry out the aforesaid purposes. Chapter III of the said Act deals , with the duties and powers of the Board of Trustees constituted for the improvement of the City of Mysore. S. 14 of the Act provides for the drawing up of a detailed scheme for the improvement or expansion or both, , of the Preas to which the Act applies, and the undertaking of any works and incurring of expenditure for the improvement and development of any area and for the framing and execution of such improvement schemes as may be necessary from time to time. By sub-sec. (2) of S. 14, the Board is also authorised to make any new or additional schemes from time to time. By sub-sec. (2) of S. 14, the Board is also authorised to make any new or additional schemes from time to time. Notwithstanding the aforementioned powers of the Board, the government is also empowered under Sec. 14 (3) of the Act whenever it is deemed necessary to require the Board to take up any improvement scheme or works and execute the same subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Government. S. 15 of the Act provides for the particulars to be provided for in an improvement scheme. Upon the completion of an improvement scheme, by S. 16 of the Act the Board is empowered to draw up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and the limits of the area comprised therein and name and place where the approved scheme, a map of the area comprised therein and a statement specifying the land which it is proposed to acquire and of the land in regard to which it is proposed to recover betterment fee may bo seen at all reasonable hours. Tt is also provided by the said section that a copy of such a notification shall be communicated to the President of the City Municipal Council, to forward within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, to the Board any representation which the municipal Councillors may think fit to make with regard to the scheme. ( 5 ) A copy of the said notification is also required to be published in three consecutive weeks in the Mysore Gazette. By sub-sec. ( 5 ) A copy of the said notification is also required to be published in three consecutive weeks in the Mysore Gazette. By sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 of the act the Board is required to serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the Municipality or the local body concerned or ir 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, or in regard to which the Board proposes to recover a betterment fee, stating that the board proposes to acquire such building or land or to recover such betterment fee and calling upon surh person to state within 30 days from the date of service of the notice whether he dissents or not to such acquisiton of the building or land or for the recovery of such betterment fee and if he dissents, to state the reasons for such dissent. Upon compliance with the provisions of S. 16 and after consideration of any representation or answer received under that section, the Board is authorised to consider the scheme in the light of the representations or answers received from interested parties and to submit to the Government for sanction of the plans and estimates relating to the scheme in question under S. 17. In the event of the Government according its sanction to the scheme forwarded to it under S. 17, S18 provides that the Chairman of the Board shall forward a declaration for notification under the signature of a Secretary to the government stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the Board for the purpose of the scheme is required for a public purpose. Clause (b) of S. 18 (1) provides for the publication of the said declaration in the Mysore Gazette and clause (c) of S. 18 (1) states that the said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and that the Board shall upon publication of the declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. S. 23 provides for the procedure to be followed in connection with the acquisition of the land required for a scheme. S. 23 provides for the procedure to be followed in connection with the acquisition of the land required for a scheme. S. 23 which is the material provision in which the answer to the question referred rests reads thus :"23. 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 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 S. 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 Government to act under S. 4 (2) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and for his servants and workmen, to do thereunder; and the provision contained in S. 5 of the said Act shall likewise be applicabe 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 S. 6 of the Land Acquisition act. (3) For the purposes of S. 50 (2) of the Mysore Land Acquisition act, 1894, the Buard shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned. (4) After the land vests in the Government under S. 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. " (underlining (italics) is by us ). ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned here that apart from S. 23, there is no other section in the Act dealing with computation and payment of compensation payable to the owners of the property from whom land is acquired for purpose of an improvement scheme. " (underlining (italics) is by us ). ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned here that apart from S. 23, there is no other section in the Act dealing with computation and payment of compensation payable to the owners of the property from whom land is acquired for purpose of an improvement scheme. A reading of S. 23 would show that for purpose of computation and payment of compensation, the provisions of the mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition act) should be followed so far as they are applicable. The relevant provision of the Acquisition Act for the above purpose is S. 23. S. 23 of the Acquisition Act as it stood when the Act was passed in the year 1903 read as follows:"23 (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration first, the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the declaration relating thereto under Section 6. . . . . " (rest of the section is not necessary for the purpose of these cases) the above section was on the lines of S. 23 of the Indian Land Acquisition act (Act 1 of 1894) until its amendment by Central Act 38 of 1923. S. 23 of the Acquisition Act was also similarly amended by Mysore Act 1 of 1927. By that amendment, the words "declaration relating thereto under S. 6" in S. 23 (1) were substituted by the words "notification' under S. 4, sub-sec. (1)". Hence, after the said Mysore Act 1 of 1927, for lands acquired under the Acquisition Act, compensation became payable on the basis of their market value as on the date of the publication of notification under S. 4 (1) of that Act. It is significant to note that the mysore Legislature did not make any corresponding amendment in the act. Although we find a deeming provision in sub-section (2) of S. 23 of the Act stating that the publication of a declaration under S. 18 shall be deemed to be the publication of a declaration under S. 6 of the Acquisition act, there is no provision stating that a notification issued under S. 16 or any other provision of the Act shall be deemed to be a notification issued under S. 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act. In our opinion, the object of stating in S. 23 (2) that the notification under S. 18 of the Act shall be deemed to be a declaration under S. 6 of the Acquistion Act, appears to be that the legislature wanted to fix the date with reference to which the market value has to be determined. We may also emphasise that that is one of the governing principles of valuation in compulsory acquisition. Since under S. 23 (1) of the Acquisition Act, as it stood in 1903, the relevant date for determining the market value of the land acquired was the date of the publication of a declaration under S. 6 of that Act, it was provided in the Act that the date on which the notification under S. 18 was published should be treated as equivalent to a declaration under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act. If anv other construction were to be placed, the deeming provision in S. 23 (2) of the Act would not serve any purpose at all. It follows, therefore, that the Legislature intended when the Act was passed that compensation should be paid for the lands acquired under the Act on the basis of Hie market value of the lands as on the date of publication of the declaration under S. 18. ( 7 ) THE question for consideration is whether by the amendment made by the Mysore Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1927 substituting the words "declaration relating thereto under Sec. 6" in Sec. 23 (1) by the words "notification under S. 4, sub-sec. (1)", the relevant date for purpose of determining the compensation has been altered even in the case of lands acquired under the Act. ( 8 ) THE effect of a deeming provision is well settled. It may be necessary to enact a deeming provision when the thing which is deemed to be equivalent to the other is really not equivalent to the other or when there is doubt about it. A comparative study of the provisions of Ss. 14 to 18 and 23 of the Act and Ss. 4, 5, 5a and 6 of the Acquisition Act would demonstrate that the said provisions are not in pari materia. There are substantial points of difference between the schemes of the two Acts. A comparative study of the provisions of Ss. 14 to 18 and 23 of the Act and Ss. 4, 5, 5a and 6 of the Acquisition Act would demonstrate that the said provisions are not in pari materia. There are substantial points of difference between the schemes of the two Acts. The procedure under the Act for acquiring a property for the purpose of a Scheme, as already stated, is governed by Ss. 14 to 18 and 23. Under S. 14 the Board has to pass a resolution providing for the drawing up of a detailed Scheme or for undertaking any work. Thereafter the said scheme has to be published under S. 16 in regard to which it is open to the Municipality and owners of property to make representations. On a consideration of such representations, the Board, if it comes to the conclusion that the Scheme should be implemented, should forward the same to the Government for its sanction. On receipt of the sanction of the Government, a declaration has to be published under S. 18. It is to be seen that there is no provision in the Act prescribing the period within which the procedure commencing with the drawing up of the scheme and ending with the declaration under S. 18 should be completed. It may be as it has happened in these cases there may be a delay of nearly fifteen years. Apparently for this reason, the Legislature intended that the relevant date for determining the market value of the properties acquired under the Act should be the date on which a declaration is published under Sec. 18. In the case of acquisitions under the Acquisition Act, the procedure is not so complicated. The proposal to acquire is notified under S. 4 (1) by the Government and not by the Board and the declaration under S. 6 is also made by the Government. In pith and substance the Act is intended to effect improvement to the City of Mysore and provide for its future expansion. ( 9 ) THE acquisition of land under it is only incidental or ancillary to the main purpose, whereas under the Acquisition Act the land is acquired by the Government for a public purpose. The two Acts cannot, therefore, be considered to be in pan materia. ( 9 ) THE acquisition of land under it is only incidental or ancillary to the main purpose, whereas under the Acquisition Act the land is acquired by the Government for a public purpose. The two Acts cannot, therefore, be considered to be in pan materia. Our view receives support from a decision of this Court in M. Laxmiah v. State of Mysore, (1966) 1 Mys. L. J. 308 in which it was held that the City of Bangalore improvement Act, which is similar to the Act, and the Acquisition act differed in several respects. While doing so this Court relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Patna Improvement Trust v. Lakshmi Devi, AIR 1963 SC 1077 and Nandeshwar Prasad v. U. P. Government, AIR 1964 SC 1217 . In the first of the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, the Act which came up for interpretation was the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act (35 of 1951) and in the second it was the kanpur Urban Area Development Act (6 of 1945 ). In the said Acts we find provisions similar to the provisions of the Act, providing for an alternative procedure to acquire land for the purpose of the local authorities referred to therein. It was further held by this Court in Laxmiah's case (1) referred to above, that whenever the Trust Board proposed to acquire any land it did so under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement act and not under the provisions of the Acquisition Act and that reference to the Acquisition Act in S. 27 of the City of Bangalore Improvement act did not make that acquisition an acquisition under the Acquisiton act. It, therefore, came to the conclusion that the provisions contained in Ss. 4, 5a and 6 of the Acquisition Act were inapplicable for acquisition under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, and that their place had been taken by Ss. 16 and 18 of the Improvement Act. It is because of this difference between the Act and the Acquisition Act it became necessary to enact S. 23 (2) of the Improvement Act declaring that the date of publication of the declaration under S. 18 of that Act should be deemed to be the date of publication of the declaration under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act, for purposes of computation of compensation. ( 10 ) SECONDLY, it is not possible to agree with the contention urged on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the notification under s. 16 should be treated as equivalent to the notification under S. 4 (1)of the Acquisition Act, for we find that such a contention is negatived by s. 23 (1) cf the Act itself. The object of issue of a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act is to permit any officer authorised by the Government or the Deputy Commissioner to enter upon the land proposed to be acquired and to carry out all acts provided by S. 4 (2) of the Acquisition act and to provide for compensation for any damage caused to the land by the carrying out of the acts authorised by S. 4 (2) of the Acquisition act. S. 23 (1) of the Act states that upon the passing of a resolution by the Board that an improvement scheme under S. 14 is necessary, it would be lawful for any person authorised by the Board to enter upon the land and carry out the several acts on the land in question as provided under s. 4 (2) of the Acquisition Act and the provisions of S. 5 of the Acquisition. ( 11 ) ACT would likewise be applicable in respect of damage caused by any of the acts of servants or workmen of the Board. It is, therefore, to be seen that what is intended to be achieved by the publication of a notification under S. 4 (l) of the Acquisition Act is sought to be achieved under the act by a resolution under S. 14 of that Act. The date of such resolution can only be anterior to the dale of publication of notification under S. 16. Hence, we are of the opinion that it is very difficult to accept that a notification under S. 16 of the Art is equivalent to a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act. If the Legislature had so intended it would have amended the Act, when in amended the Acquisition Act by provding that a notification under S. 16 of the Act should be deemed to be equivalent to a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act. There is, therefore, no warrant for accepting the submission made on behalf of the Special land Acquisition Officer. There is, therefore, no warrant for accepting the submission made on behalf of the Special land Acquisition Officer. ( 12 ) SRI R. S. Mahendra, the learned Counsel for the Special Land Acquisition officer, relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in m. Manicklal v. State of Mysore, (1967) 2 Mys. L. J. 239, and contended that Ss. 4, 5a and 6 of the Acquisition Act were similar to Ss. 16 to 18 of the Improvement act. In that case this Court was of the view that all that had to be done under Ss. 4, 5a and 6 of the Acquisition Act was done equally efficaciously under Ss. 16 and 18 of the Act and hence there was no need for again following the procedure prescribed under the Acquisition Act in the form of a preliminary notification under S. 4 or hearing under S. 5a or a declaration under S. 6 of that Act. The said decision was rendered in a writ petition where the contention of the petitioner was that in addition to the procedure prescribed under the Act, the procedure prescribed under the acquisition Act also had to be followed. The Court made the above observation while repelling the said contention. But nowhere in that decision this Court held that for purpose of determining the compensation, the date of the notification under S. 16 of the Act should be taken as the relevant date. There was no occasion also for the Court to say so. ( 13 ) IT was also contended on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition officer that by the amendment of S. 23 (1) of the Acquisition Act by mysore Act 1 of 1927, the Legislature intended that it should be effective even in the case of properties acquired under the Act. It was argued that it was necessary in the circumstances to give effect to the provisions of S. 23 of the Acquisition Act. We cannot accede to the said contention. S. 23 of the Act clearly says that the provisions of the Acquisition Act should be followed in the matter of acquisition of lands under the Act in so far as they are applicable. We cannot accede to the said contention. S. 23 of the Act clearly says that the provisions of the Acquisition Act should be followed in the matter of acquisition of lands under the Act in so far as they are applicable. The words "so far as they are applicable" clearly indicate that it is open to the Court not to apply any provision of the Acquisition Act to acquisitions under the Act if it is not possible to apply the same. We are of the opinion that in the absence of a deeming provision in the Act declaring that a notification under S. 16 shall be deemed to be a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Acquisition Act, it has to be held that the words "notification under S. 4, sub-sec. (1)" appearing in the Acquisition Act would not be applicable to an acquisition under the Act. ( 14 ) WE are of the opinion that the position of law relating to the relevant date which should be taken into account for purpose of determining the market value of the land acquired under the Act remains unaltered after it was enacted and compensation is payable to the properties acquired even after Mysore Act 1 of 1927, on the basis of the market value of the properties as on the date of the publication of a declaration under S. 18 of the Act. ( 15 ) IT was lastly contended by Sri R. S. Mahendra, that the provisions of the Indian Land Acquisition Act as it is new in force in Mysore State should be applied to these cases. By Mysore Act 17 of 1961, the Mysore legislature repealed the Acquisition Act and extended the Indian Land acquisition Act, 1894, with some modifications to Mysore State. The provisions of the Indian Land Acquisition Act toeing materially similar to the provisions of the Acquisition Act, the views expressed by us in regard to the Acquisition Act hold good in the case of Indian Acquisition Act also. There is however one additional reason for saying so. S. 5a of the indian Land Acquisition Act has been amended by the Mysore Legislature by setting out the time limit within which the report of the Deputy Commissioner should be forwarded to the Government. There is however one additional reason for saying so. S. 5a of the indian Land Acquisition Act has been amended by the Mysore Legislature by setting out the time limit within which the report of the Deputy Commissioner should be forwarded to the Government. But no such restriction is to be found regarding the time within which the Board should submit a scheme for the sanction by the Government. Further, the relevant provisions of the Act continue to remain unaltered even after the Mysore Act 17 of 1961 was passed. Hence, we do not find any substance in the above contention also. ( 16 ) SRI R. J. Babu, the learned Counsel for one of the appellants in the above cases, however contended that the relevant date for fixing the compensation is the date on which possession of the property was taken by the Board. We find it difficult to accept this submission. The Act when it was enacted clearly declared that the relevant date was the date of the publication of a declaration under S. 18 by enacting S. 23 (2) of the Act. ( 17 ) BEFORE concluding we propose to refer to one other aspect of the matter. If we accept the contention of the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the market value prevailing in 1945 should be taken as the basis, then the acquisition of the properties in these cases might itself become unconstitutional. It would not be just and reasonable to give compensation for a property acquired by a public authority, on the basis of its market value prevailing some fifteen or twenty years before the date of taking possssion. We may refer here to a decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Doohgarsee and Sons v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 Guj. 46 in which it is observed that a declaration under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act in order to be valid must follow within a reasonable time after the issue of S. 4 notification. In that case S. 4 notification was issued on May 20, 1961 and S. 6 notification was issued on June 6, 1966 and thus there was an interval of about five years between the two notifications. It was held that a five years interval of time was unreasonable. In that case S. 4 notification was issued on May 20, 1961 and S. 6 notification was issued on June 6, 1966 and thus there was an interval of about five years between the two notifications. It was held that a five years interval of time was unreasonable. In the cases before us, as already stated, the interval between the notification under Section 16 and the notification under s. 18 of the Act is nearly fifteen years. ( 18 ) OUR answer to the question referred to the Full Bench, therefore, is: the relevant date for determining the market value of the property acquired under the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 (Mysore Act iii of 1903) is the date of notification of the decaration under S. 18 of the act. ( 19 ) THE papers will now go back to the appropriate Division Bench for disposal of the appeals in accordance with the opinion expressed above. --- *** --- .