762

BACHAN SINGH & ORS.

v.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

February 18, 1971

[S. M. SIKRI, CJ., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER

AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJl

Punjab Deve/opmen~ of Damaged Areas Act (10 of 1951 )-If viola­

Jive of Arts. 14, 19(1)(/) and (g) and 31(2) of the Constitution.

I.n order to deal with extensive damage to property and to clear the

debris and refuse caused by communal riots in 1947 in Punjab, statutes

were enacted, giving suitable powers the last of which is the Punjab Deve­

lopment of Damaged Areas Act, 1951. Under s. 2(d) of the Act the

State Government declared by a Notification that the entire area within

the walled city of Amritsar to be damaged area. The Improvement Trust

formulated certain schemes wh oh were sanctioned by the State Govern­

ment. Thereafter, notice was issued to the first petitioner to vacate the

shop in his possession and to the second and third petitioners to appear

before the Land Acquisition Collector and explain the interest which they

had in the premi'es in their occupation sought to be acquired.

In a petition under Art. 32, on the questions whether (I) the Act is

violative of Art. 14, because (a) the power to declare an area as damaged

is arbitrary, and (b) the property can

be acquired at the

di!c'retion of the

TrusJ either under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, or under the

Act, compensation payable under the formeT Act being more advantageous;

(2) the ,-estrictions imposed by the Act .-1.n~ 1111reasonable ,al'.d violative of

Art. 19(fl(fJ and lg): cir.d I~) t'.. ..o·•lton and compensation provi­

sions of the Act violate Art. 31\l).

HELD: (!) There is no violation of Art. 14.

A

B

c

D

E

(a) The purpose of the Act ·is for framing and executing schemes of

improvemen~ in urban areas where damage has been caused to buildings

by wholesale and serious rioting an.d hence, the power conferred on the F

State Government to declare an area damaged area is not arbitlrary, un ..

guided or uncanalised. If the whole of the walled city of Amritsar is a

damaged area and part thereof is equally a damaged area. Therefore, it

is not difficult to determine what is damaged area and the Notification in

the present case

is not vague. [773 A-DJ

(b) No option is given to acquire the area either under the 1951 Act

or

Punjab Town Improvement Act accordin~ to the discretion ~f t.he ~m-G

pro1ement Trust. The 1951-Act only provides that the Trost in frammg

a scheme may provide for all or any of the matters mentioned in s. 28 of

the Punjab 1 own Improvement Act, and that any sche.me already framed

under the latter Act is deemed to have been framed under 1951-Act.

[771 A-BJ

(2) The provisions of the Act are reasonable and are des.igned to serve

the interest of the general public

by executmg schemes

m . a planned H

m1

11

ner for the improvement of the damaged areas of the city and .the

restrictions imposed are protected by Art. 19(5) and (6) of the Const1tu-

1ion. (769 G-H)

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

BACHAN SINGH v, PUNJAB 76:J·

(a) Pason; who are affected by a scheme are given an opportunity

to

file their objections which have to be given due consideration by

I.be'

JnoFrovement Trust before finalising the scheme, and by State Government

before sanctioning the scheme.. They have also the right to take .part in.

the proceeJing; before I.be Collector in the inquiry into claims for com·

pensation. They are given notice of the award and are given a right to

have their objections to the award fixing the compenSation or the area

demarcated and other matters specified in s. 20 referred to a nibunal.

The award, or any order passed by the Tribunal, is deemed to be a judg·

mem and decree under the Civil Procedure Code, and affected persons

have a right

of appeal to the High Court and to this

Cpurt .. [770 B·F]

(b) The fact that there are some newly built buildings which are not

damaged would not make the provisions of the Act unreasonnble nor justify

an impediment beinjl placed to a scheme which is designed to achieve a

social purpose and 1s for I.be public goOd [770 G-H]

· ( c) The persons in occupation of shops have been assured in writing

by the Improvement Trust of alternative 11ccommodation and allotment of

pucca shops as soon as possible. [771 HJ

( 3) The compensation payable is neither inadequate nor illusory but

on the other hand it

is not less than the market value and may even

be·

more. There is thus no violation of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution.

[770 G 772 BJ

(a) The compensation payable to persons interested under the Act is

mdre in ihl! nature of a profit sharing scheme in that the minimum that

they would be entitled for payment is the market value of the property

which has come under the scheme and may even be more depending upon

the income of the scheme and the exr,enditure incurred therefor. The com•

pensation js determined on princip es similar to those under the Land

Acquisition Act or the Punjab Town Improvement Act. [770 B-C. HJ

(b) lt cannot be contended that compensation is not payable for the

buildings but only for the land, because. the definition

of land under the

Act

is similar to that in s. 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act and is com­

prehensive enough

to include buildings also. [771 DJ

(c) The finalisation of the scheme

will take time but under s. 12(2

the submission of the scheme by the Trust is not to be later than threo

years. Therefore, it cannot be urged that the final compensation is not

immedialtly payable and that

it may take

several yeors without any pay·

ment of inte1est during that time. In any case, the scheme is for the

benefit

of all those who

havt properties ia the areas which are covered by

the scheme and is on a profit sharin~ basis. There is I.bus no hardship or

disadvantage. [771 E-OJ

ORIGINAL JuR1smcr10N : Writ Petition No. 1 of 1970.

Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the

enforcement of fundamental rights.

J. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the petitiQliers.

H Bishan Nurain and R. N. SdChthey, for respondent No. 1.

Bishan Narain, B. Datta, J. B. Dadilchanji, 0. C. Mathur and

Ravinder Narain, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

16'4 :-SUl'REME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. Jaganmohao Reddy, J. The three Petitioners who are

·residents of Amritsar have filed this Petition under Art. 32 of the

'Constitution, challenging the Punjab Development ot Damaged

Areas Act

IO

oi 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as being

violative of Art 14, 19( 1) (f) & (g) and 31 (2) of the Constitu­

tion of India.

The first Petitioner carries on a Bakery business in a shop in

B.azar Ja!lianwala near Chowk Phowara of which he is a tenant.

The second Petitioner is the owner of a building consisting of a

number of shops situated in Bazar Bikanarian while the third

Petitioner

is a tenant in occupation of a residential house situated

in Bazar Sodhian.

On 26th June 1962 the State Govt. declared

by a Notification under

Sec. 2(d) of the Act the entire area within

the walled city of Amritsar

to be a damaged area. In pursuance

of the said Notification a number

oi schemes were formulated by

the Improvement Trust of Amrits< r. Two of such Schemes with

which the Petitioners are concerned related

to ( 1 ) Chowk

Phowara

.cum Jallianwala Bagh and (2) Ghantaghar. The former Scheme

wus sanctioned by the State Govt., by a Notification dated the

17th July 1968, while the Ghantaghar Scheme was sanctioned by

Notification of the iOth October 1969. Pursuant to these Noti­

fications a Nottce was issued on 26th November 1969 to the first

Petitioner whose shop

is covered by the Chowk

Phowara cum

Jallianwala Bagh Scheme to vacate the premises in his possession.

A notice

was also given to

PetitiQllers 2 & 3 in respect of the

buildings owned or occupied by them in the Ghantaghar area

Scheme, asking them to appear before the Land· Acquisition Col­

lector-the 3rd Respondent and explain the interest which they

have

in the respective premises sought to be acquired. It is con­

tended by the

Petitioners :-(1) (a) that Sec. 2(d) <Jlfends Art.

14 of the Constitution inasmuch

as the damaged area as defined

under that Section furnishes no guidelines,

is arbitrary, unguided,

un-canalised and discriminatory inasmuch as it enables the State.

G<Jvt. to pick and choose any area and declare it to be damaged

area even though it may not at

all be damaged while at the same

time leaving out other areas similarly situated which are either

not

damaged or really damaged; that in any case the Notification

under Sec. 2(d) is vague and therefore bad, (b) thar the provi­

sions regarding compensation are also discriminatory because

property can be acquired at the dis6retion of the Improvement

Trust either under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 or

under the Act even though the compensation payable under the

provision of the former Act are advantageous

as compared to

those payable under the Act;

(2) that the compensation provi­

sions in the Act violate Art.

31 (2) as it stood at the time when

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

,

,.

H

A

__ , c

•,

D

E

F

G H

BACHAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 765

the Act was passed in 1951; (3) that the Acquisitio~ under the

Act cannot be said

to be for a public purpose

·as not a single pie

comes from the Govt. or

is contributed by the local authority;

and (

4) that the impugned Notification sanctioning the two

schemes

is also void because once the Govt. had exercised the

power

by sanctioning Dharam

Si·ngh Market Scheme, the power

of sanction under Section

5 is exhausted.

In order to appreciate the several contentions it is necessary

to examine the provisions of the Act but before

we do so it may

be useful also

to briefly set out the legislative history of the

enact­

ment and the purpose for which it was enacted. Prior to the

partition of India there were serious communal rioting

in March

1947

in some parts of Punjab, particCilarly in Amritsar.

'J\hese

riots as well as those which subsequently took place on the eve of

partition caused extensive damage to properti and left a Jot of

debris and refuse which had to

be cleared. The Governor of

Punjab

who had by a proclamation under Sec. 93 of the Govt. of

India Act 1935 assuming to himself ail powers vested by and under

the said Act passed the Punjab Damaged Areas Act

11 of 1947

on 9th May 194 7. The Act

so passed would only have force for

two years from the date on which

t!«e proclamation ceases to have

effect

unless sooner repealed or re-enacted by an Act

of the appro­

priate legislature. The rule. of the Governor came to an end on 15th

August 1947 and consequently thf 1947 Act would cease to have

force on 15th August 1949.

It appears from the statement of objects and reasons

of the

194 7 Act that Government finding that it had not adequate power

to deal with dangerous or damaged buildings summarily, or to

deal satisfactorily with debris,

the materials of damaged or fallen

buildi,ngs

or

to control salvage of property and its disposal or to

indemnify

the Crown or the Local authorities or their employees

for the action already taken in respect of the aforesaid matters,

wanted to arm itself by emergency changes in the Laws regulating

the administration of

Urban areas and to provide in ~n orderly way

for the custody and disposal of debris and salved property. The

substantive portions of the Act were meant to come into force in

any area

to which their application may be considered desirable by

the Provincial

Government, on such date as may be notified.

Under Sec. 2(c) the Damaged area was defined in much tile Saine

way as is defined in Sec. 2(b) of the present Act. It conferred

power on the Provincial ·Government to declare by Notification

any area

or any portion thereof to be a damaged area.

Under

this provision the whole of the walled city of Amritsar was declared

to be damaged area.

As this Act would have lapsed by the 15th

August 1949, the East Punjab Damaged Areas Act

10 of 1949

was enacted which pnbodied practically the same provisions as

766

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 3 S.C.R.

were contained in the 1947 Act. Under this Act no fresh Notifi­

cation in respect of the area Notified in the 194 7 Act was issued

and though Sections 1 to 3 of the 1949 Act came into force imme­

diately after its publication the other provisions of that Act were

to come into force in any urban area

as the

State Govt. by Noti­

fication may appoint. These provisions however did not meet the

need for planned development of the damaged areas 3jlld conse­

quently the Damaged Area Ordinance 16 of 1950 was promulgated

by the Governor of Punjab on the ls! December 1950. The

Ordinance was replaced

by the present Act.

Though under sub.

sec. ( 2) of Section 1 the Act extends to

the whole

pf Punjab sub-sec. ( 3) was to come into force at once

within the local area of Amritsar Improvement Trust and any

other such areas

as the Govt. may by Notification specify. Sec.

2 ( d) defines damaged area to be an area which the

State Govt.

by Notification may declare to be a damaged area and includes the

area already ;notified by the East Punjab Damaged Area Act 1949.

Section

2(e) defined 'The Improvement Trust' or 'Trusts' as an

Improvement Trust constituted under the Punjab

To-Mn Improve­

ment Act 1922 while Land under Sec. 2(f) includes benefits to

arise out of land or things attached to the earth or permanently

fastened to ·anything attached to the earth. Sec. 3 empowers the

Trust to frame a Scheme or Schemes for the development of the

damaged area providing for all or any oi the matters mentioned

under

Sec. 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 and

any Scheme already framed

or. sanctioned in respect of a damaged

area under the Provisions of that Act which shall

be deemed to

have

been framed or sanctioned under the Act. Sections. 4 & 5

~ft.en provide for the publication of the Scheme ·giving certain

specified details calling for objections

to the

Scheme within a

period prescribed. After considering the objections, if any, which

may, be received by the Trust during the period prescribed the

Trust may approve the scheme with or without modification and

thereafter submit it . to the State Govt. with a statcmel)t oi ob_jec­

tions received by it. The State Govt. may modify the scheme if

necessary and notify it either in original or as modified. The

Scheme so published shall be deemed to ":le the sanctioned scheme;

such publications being conclusive evid~ce of the Scheme having

been duly framed and sanctioned. Under Sec. 6 the Trust shali

within 3 months from the date of the publication of the Scheme

under Sub-Section 3 of Section 5 apply to the Collector for acqui­

sition and if considered necessary for taking immediate possession

of the whole

or part of any damaged area comprised in the

Scheme and on such application

being made the Collector may

forthwith deliver or caused to be delivered to it the possession of

the damaged area. On such order being made by the Collector

the damaged area

vests in the Trust free from all incumbrances

a

t ..

'

c

I>

E

F

G

l.l

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

BACHAN SINGH v.

PUNJAB (Jaganmohan Reddy, /.) 767

but subject to payment in due course of compensation by tht

Trust in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The occupier

of any building or any part of the building was to be given at least

2

weeks notice or such longer notice as it considered reasonably

sufficient to enable him

to remove his movable property from such

building without unnecessary inconvenience

to him. Section 7

empowers the Collector, if

he is himself a

Ma6istrate and if 111ot to

apply to a Magistrate to remove obstruction and to deliver posses­

sion of the land to the Improvement Trust. Sec. 8 provides for

marking and measuring. Sec. 9 requires the Co!lector to cause

notices

giving particulars as required under sub-sec. (2)

inviti'lg

claims to be made to him for compensation. Sec. 11 requires the

Collector

to make

~ en4uiry into the objections and claims mude

pursuant to the notice issued under sub-sec. 2(b) of Sec. 9, a.'1d

to determine :

(a) the true area of the land;

(b) the market value, at the time of publication of the

Scheme under Section 4 (1), of-

(i) the land,

(ii) all material standing on them, and

(iii) any sources of income derived from the land.

( c) The value of pJ.ots, the material thereon and

other sources of income remaining outstanding

as notified by the

State Government under

Section 12; and

( d) the extent of the interest of every person claim­

i111g compensation, and the market value of the

interest of such persons at the time of publication

of the scheme under Sectiob 4 ( 1).

UD;der ~ec. 12 the ':frust shall as s?on a~ possession of the land

compnsed m the sanctmned scheme 1s delivered to it proceed to

execute the

scheme-but not later than 3 years of

the· sanction

of the scheme sub~it for the scrutiny of the State Govt. an accu­

rate statement which shall contain the following particulars :-

(a) the actual cost of the scheme;

(b)

(c)

(d)

the income derived from the scheme·

'

the particulars· and the estimated value of the

plots and· any material thereon that remain to

be sold; and

5-Ll JOOSupCI/71

~he estimated value of the other sources of

mcome from the scheme which remain out­

standing.

768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R.

Oil the scheme being submitted to the State Govt., it shall after

necessary scrutiny notify the details of he aforesaid statement.

The manner in which compensation

is to be computed and

A

the award to be passed by the Collector and the payment of com­

pengation are p1ovided for in Sec. 13 aind 16. Section 14 pro­

vides for the Collector's award to

be filed and

Sec. 15 empowers B.

Trust either to notify its intention to make a reference to the

Tribunal in the manner stated in Sec. 19 against the amount

awarded

by the Collector or place the

amolli!lt awarded at his

disposal. Sections

13 and 16 which deal with the calculation of

the total compensation and

its payment are as follows :

Sec. 13 : (1)

After the statement has been ~otified

under the preceding section, the Collector shall make an

award apportioning compensatioo in the manner herein·

after prescribed, among all the persons known or be­

lieved to be interested in the land, of whom or of whose

claims he has information, whether or not they have

appeared before him.

(

2) Notwithstanding anythg contained in any

other law

for the time being in force, the total compen­

sation payable for any Jan4 acquired under this Act

shall

be the difference between-

( a) the income of the Scheme, which shall include

the estimated value

of the plots and the material thereon

that

remain to be sold and the other sources of income

from the scheme which remain outstanding; and

(

b) the cost of the scheme, as notified in the

statement under

See. 12.

(

3) subject to the provisions of the Administration

of Evacuee Property Act 1950, or a1.ty other law on the

subject for the time being in force, the compensatiOlll

awarded in respect of the structures, if any, standing on

the land· comprised in the scheme shall be payabfe to

the persons known or believed to be interested in those

structures according to their respective iiil.terests as deter­

mined by the Collector under Sec. 11.

Explanation : In computing such compensation,

the Collect<;>r shall assess the market value of the struc­

tures at. the time of delivery of possession of the land

to the Trust and deduct from such value the cost of

demolishing them aind removing the. material from the

site.

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

BACHAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (laganmohan Reddy, !.) 7 69

( 4) The. total compensation, Jess any deductions

that may be necessary on .account of the am~unts, if

any, payable under sub-sect10n (3), shall be paid to the

various persons interested in proportion to the ~terests

held by them as determined by the Collector under

sec. ll(c).

Provided that the amount paid to any person shall

not be less than the market value of his interest as deter­

mined by the Collector under Sec. 11 ( d) minus the cost

of demolitioo and removal incurred by the Trust.

Sec. 16 : From the amount placed at his disposal

under section 15 . the Collector shall, according to the

award, tender payments to the persons interested and

make payments to those who agree to receive the same,

with or without protest.

Sections 19 to 21 provide that the Trust or persons interested

who receive compensatiqn under protest, may require the Collector

to make a reference to the Tribunal in respect of the measurement

of the hnd, amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is

payable, its apportionment among persons interested. A statement

of the case is also required to be draWl!I up by the Collector on

reference, and a notice to be given by the Tribunal to the persons

interested. Under Sec. 23 the Tribunal has power to either main­

tain or modify the award passed by the Collector and order pay­

ment to the persons entitled to it, provided that it shall not questiOll

the amounts notified under Sec. 12. The award passed by the

"1"ribunal is deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds

therefor a Judgment within the meaning of sub-section (2) a,:id

(9) of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code; and every award

and order of the Tribunal is enforceable by the Court of the Senior

Sub Judge within the local limits of its jurisdiction as if it were a

decree made or passed by it. While Section 24 makes provision

for the award of costs, Section 25 does not require the Trust to pay

interest on any amount awarded as compensation and tendered in

accordance with the order of the Collector.

The provisions of the Act it may be noticed clearly indicate

that

they are reasonable and are

designed to serve the interest of

the general public namely to execute schemes in a planned manner

for the improvement of the damaged areas of the city of Amritsar.

They do not in any way violate the provisions of Art. 19(1 )(f) &

( g) . This Court has in no IJill.Certain terms laid down the test for

ascertaining reasonableness of the restrictions on the rights gua­

ranteed under Art. 19 to be determined by a reference to the nature

of

the right said to have been infringed, the purpose of the restric­tions sought to be imposed, the urgency of the evil and the necessity

--.

770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R.

to rectify or remedy it-all of which has to be . balanced with the

social welfare or social purpose sought to be achieved. The right

of the individual has therefore to be sublimated

to the larger inte-

rest of the general public. Applying this test it will be seen that

persons who are

affected by the Scheme are given an opportunity

to

file their objections which have to be given due consideration by

the Trust before finalising the scheme. Their

objecti<¥1S are further

considered

by the Govt. before sanctioning the scheme. They

have also a right to take part in the proceedings before

the

Col­

lector in the enquiry into claims, for compensation, and are gien

nNice of the awai;d made by the Collector. The compqnsation

payable to them is. more in the nature of a profit sharing scheme

in that the minimum)hat they would be entitled for payment i~-the

tflarket value of the property which has come under the scheme

and may

even be entitled to something more depending

upon the

income'of the scheme and the expenditure incurred therefor. The

total amount of compensation for any land so acquired under

Sec .

.

13(2) is the difference between the income of the scheme which is· to include the estimated value of the buildings and the material

thereon that remains to be sold, the profits on the plots sold and

the other source of the income of the scheme as notified in the

statement under Sec. 12, subject as we have pointed out earlier to

the compensation in any case not being less thain the market value

A

B

c

D

E

of his interest as determined by the Collector under Sec. l1 ( d )

m~us the cost of the demolition and removal incurred by the

Trust. The persons interested are further given a right to have

their objections

to the

award fixing compensation, the area of the

land demarcated and other matters

as specified in

Sec. 20 referred

to the Tribunal. The award or any order passed, by the Tribunal

being deemed to

be a Judgment and a decree under the Civil Procedure Code, the affected persons have therefore right of appeal

provided under that Code, which will give the main opportunity .F

to go up to the High Court and even to the Supreme Court. The

fundamental rights to acquire, hold or dispose property or

to carry

on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Art.

19( 1)

(f) & (g) is subject to the restrictions contained in clauses

( 5)

& ( 6) of the said Article. The Act in our view complies

substantially

if not abundantly with the restrictions imposed on the

exercise of the said fundamental rights.

It is then contended that some buildings

in these areas are

newly build or that some of them are not damaged and hence the

restriction

is unreasonable but in our view this alone does not in

any way justify

an impediment being placed for a scheme which

G

is designed to achieve a social purpose and is for the public good. ·H

The compensation payable under the Act is 'also determined on

ptjnciples similar to those under the Land Acquisition Act or the

Punjab Town Improvement Act. There is however no justification

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

BACHAN

SJNOH v. PUNJAB (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 771

in the submission that option is given to acquire tlie area either

under the Act or under the Punjab Town Improvement Act ac­

cording to the discretion of the Trust which is without guide-Jiines

and arbitrary. This argument is devoid of force because what

Section 3

empowers is that the Trust in framing a scheme may

provide

for all or any of the matters mentioned in Section 28 of the

Punjab Town Improvement Act. It further declares that any

scheme already framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Act

is deemed to have been framed under the Act. This is far from

saying that a discretion is given to the Trust to frame a ~cheme

either under the provisions of the Act or under the provisions of

the Punjab Town improvement Act or that the provisions of the

latter Act are more advantageous in the matter of compensati0in

or in respect of any other matter. The section merely incorporates

by reference some of the provisions of the other Act and is also

an enabling one. There is also no validity in the CQDtention that

compensation

is not payable for the buildings but only for the

land because the definition

of land under the Act is similar to

that

ooder Sec, 3 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act r.nd is com­

prehensive enough to include buildings also.

It is next urged that compensation so determined is not im­

mediately payable because under the provisions of the Act the

final compensation will only be dete~ed after the scheme is

submitted and sanctioned by the Govt. which may take several

years and ·also there is a prohibition a~ainst payment of in­

terest on the amount of compensation ~1ke that provided under

the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is true that the

finalisation of the scheme will take time but under the provisions

of sub-sec ( 2) CJ( Sec. 12 the submission of the Scheme by the

Trust

is not to be later than 3 years which does not mean

neces­

sarily that it will take 3 years and may even take less if not

obstructed by persons afl;ected. In any case as we have said where

the scheme

is for the

.~llefit of all those who have properties in

the areas which are covered

by the scheme and is on a profit

sha·

ring basis, there is no hardship or disadvamtal!e--particularly

when the Petitioners as we shall point out presently are assured

of alternative accommodation and the allotment of newly built

shops under the

scheme.

Though the actual schemes are not

befor\I us, it is stated

in the counter of Respondent No. 2 the Chairman of the Amritsar

Improvement Trust that

the Petitioners have been assured in

writing

by the Trust that allotment

of pacca shops as so.Jn as

H the commercial building in Dharam Singh Market which is being

constructed at an estimated cost

of Rs. 26

lakhs is completed.

lin fact Ahata Bishan Dass and the adjoining scheme areas are

ready.

In the meanwhile many of the persons who have applied

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 3 S.C.R.

for alternate accommodation have for the time being been ac­

commodated by the Trust in the stalls recently set up in Kesri­

bagh in the immediate vicinity of the Trust office. Though the

Petitioners 1 and 3 have not applied for alternative accom­

modation they have been assured that they will be treated alike

with the said displaced occupiers of shops in case they apply for

alternative accommodation.

In so far as the petitioner

No, 2

is concerned it is alleged that he is not an occupier of the buil­

ding, as such there is illO question of an alternative accommoda­

tion being given to him but this matter will have to be decided

under the provisions of the Act.

Be that as it may in

fact the

Chairman of the Amritsar Improvement Trust has appended to ·

the counter a letter addressed to one Inder Singh Arora who

has a shop in Bazar Jallianwala in Amritsar and who is also

similarly situated like the petitioners. In that letter of 6-1-1970

he has stated

as follows :-

"Reference your discussion with the undersigned.

It

has been decided to offer you accommodation

on the lines of commitments

made by the Trust in

High Court ~n letters Patent Appeal No. 187 of 1969

(Mulk Raj & Others Vs. Trust) i.e. as soon as ~m­

mercial buddings in Dharam Singh Market, Ahata Bis­

han Dass and the adjoining Scheme areas are ready,

the Trust would

give preference to the .oustees from

the

scheme area ( Chowk Phowara to J allianwala

Bagh in Main Bazar and other Markets)

who

·are 5

years old to occupy shops of their choice at the rent

which

is fixed by the Trust for the particular shop.

The

rOi!lt fixed by the Improvement Trust may be the

highest that can

be fetched in the Market. At that rent

the tenants

may exercise their option to get tenancy

. rights

in preference to others and in case they refuse to

take the

shops on rent so fixed by the Trust, the same

would be given to

others"

· These assur3j!lces are commitments and would equally apply

to the Petitioners.

We cannot envisage a more reasonable

and

fair treatment accorded to the persons who have been displaced

as a result of, the Improvement Schemes. The petitioners in spite

of all these assurances have taken an unreasonable attitude in

litigating and holding up a scheme that is beneficial for all those

affected in the damaged areas by the

two impugned schemes. In

our

view the compensation payable is neither inadequate nor

illusory but

oo the other hand is not less than the market value

and may even

be more. There

is therefore no violation of Art.

31{ 2) of the Constitution.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

•

B

c

D

BACHAN SINGH v. PUNJAB (laganmohan Reddy, J.) 773

The further contention that Sec. 2 ( d) is discriminatory or

"9gue in that it does not indicate the criteria for determining

what

is a damaged area appears to us to be without force. We

have seen the purpose for which the Act

was passed by the

Legis­

lature which leaves little doubt that it was the damage caused

by wholesale and serious rioting to buildings in certain urba.n

areas in the State of Punjab and particularly in the area within

the walled city of Amritsar which necessitated the framing and

execution of schemes of improvement in those areas. In so

far as the present petition is concerned it relates to two of the

areas within the walled city of Amritsar.

It is therefore not

difficult to determine what

is a damaged area for, if the whole of

the walled city of Amritsar

is a damaged area, any part thereof

is equally a damaged area. There is nothing arbitrary nor is

the power conferred on

t)le State Govt., unguided or un-cana­

lised nor for that matter can it be said that the Notification issued

on the 26th Jooe 1962 is vague.

In so far as the contention that the impugned Notification

sanctioning the two schemes are void as the power under Sec. 5

of the Act was~xhausted because the Govt. had already exercised

its power when it sanctioned Dharam Singh Market Scheme, the

learned Advocate has inot chosen to address any arguments or to

substJntiate that contention. As such

we find it unnecessary to

deal with it.

In our view none of the objections are sustainable either on

the ground of

discriminati<Ji!l under Art. 14 or on the scheme

being unreasonable or not in the interest of general public violat­

ing Art. 19(1)({) & (g) nor on the ground of the compensation

payable being iinadequate or insufficient so as to infrmge the

guarantee under Art. 31(2) of the Constituiton of India. The

petition

is accordingly dismissed with costs.

V.P.S. Petition dismissed.