http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: BACHAN SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1971

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2164            1971 SCR  (3) 762

ACT: Punjab  Development  of Damaged Areas Act  (10  of  1951)-If violative  of  Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) and 31(2)  of  the Constitution.

HEADNOTE: In  order to deal with extensive damage to property  and  to clear the debris and refuse caused by communal riots in 1947 in  Punjab, statutes we’re enacted, giving  suitable  powers the last of which is the Punjab Development 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 which were  sanctioned  by the State Government.  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,  premises in their  occupation  sought  to  be acquired. In  a petition under Art. 32, on the questions  whether  (1) 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 discretion  of  the  Trust either under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, or under the Act, compensation payable under the form& Act being more advantageous;  (2) the restrictions imposed by the  Act  are unreasonable  and violative of Art. 19(1 ) (f) and (g);  and (3)  the acquisition and compensation provisions of the  Act violate Art. 31(2). HELD : (1) There is no violation of Art. 14. (a)  The  purpose  of the Act is for framing  and  executing schemes of improvement in urban areas where damage has  been caused  to  buildings by wholesale and serious  rioting  and hence,  the  power  conferred on  the  State  Government  to declare  an area damaged area is not arbitrary, unguided  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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

[773 A-D] (b)  No option is given to acquire the area either under the 1951  Act  or Punjab Town Improvement Act according  to  the discretion  of  the Improvement Trust.   The  1951-Act  only provides that the Trust in framing a scheme may provide  for all  or any of the matters mentioned in s. 28 of the  Punjab Town  Improvement  Act, and that any scheme  already  framed under  the  latter Act is deemed to have been  framed  under 1951-Act. [771 A-B] (2)  The  provisions  of  the Act  are  reasonable  and  are designed  to  serve the interest of the  general  public  by executing schemes in a planned manner for the improvement of the  damaged areas of the city and the restrictions  imposed are  protected  by Art. 19(5) and (6) of  the  Constitution. [769 G-H] 763 (a)  Persons  who  are  affected by a scheme  are  given  an opportunity to file their objections which have to be  given due consideration by the Improvement Trust before finalising the  scheme, and by State Government before sanctioning  the scheme.   They  have  also the right to take  part  in,  the proceedings before the Collector in the inquiry into  claims for  compensation.  They are given notice of the  award  and are  given  a right to have their objections  to  the  award fixing  the compensation or the are’ I demarcated and  other matters  specified  in  s. 20 referred to  a  Tribunal.  The award, or any order passed by the Tribunal, is deemed to  be a  judgment ’and decree under the Civil Procedure Code,  and affected  persons have a right of appeal to the  High  Court and to this Court. [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 unreasonable nor justify an impediment being placed to a scheme which is designed to achieve a social purpose and  is for the public good [770 G-H] (c)  The persons in occupation of shops have been assured in writing   by   the   Improvement   Trust   of    alternative accommodation  and  allotment  of pucca  shops  as  soon  as possible. [771 H] (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 B] (a)  The  compensation payable to persons  interested  under the Act is more in the 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 expenditure incurred therefore.   The  com- pensation is determined on principles similar to those under the Land Acquisition Act or the Punjab Town Improvement Act. [770 B-C, H] (b)  It 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 comprehensive  enough to include buildings also. [771 D] (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 three years.  Therefore, it cannot  be  urged that  the final compensation is not immediately payable  and that  it  may  take several years  without  any  payment  of interest  during that time.  In any case, the scheme is  for the  benefit of all those who have properties in  the  areas which  are covered by the scheme and is on a profit  sharing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

basis.  There is thus no hardship or disadvantage. [771 E-G]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 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 petitioners. Bishan Nar  and    R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 1. Bishan Narain, B. Datta, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur  and Ravinder Narain, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 7 64 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.   Jaganmohan  Reddy,  J. The three  Petitioners  who  are residents of Amritsar have filed this Petition under Art.  3 2 of the Constitution, challenging the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act 10 of  1951 (hereinafter called ’the Act’) as being violative of Art.    14, 19 ( 1 ) (f ) & (g) and  3 1 (2) of the Constitution of India. The first Petitioner carries on a Bakery business in a  shop in  Bazar  Jallianwala 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 of schemes were  formulated  by  the Improvement  Trust  of Amritsar.  Two of such  Schemes  with which  the Petitioners are concerned related to ( 1 )  Chowk Phowara cum Jallianwala Bagh and (2) Ghantaghar.  The former Scheme was sanctioned by the State Govt., by a  Notification dated  the 17th July 1968, while the Ghantaghar  Scheme  was sanctioned  by  Notification  of  the  10th  October   1969. Pursuant to these Notifications a Notice 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 Petitioners  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  Collector-the  3rd Respondent  and explain the interest which they have in  the respective premises sought to be acquired.  It is  contended by the Petitioners :-(1) (a) that Sec. 2(d) offends 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.  Government 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) that  the  provisions regarding  compensation  are  also  discriminatory   because property   can  be  acquired  at  the  discretion   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 provisions in the Act violate Art.  31 (2) as it stood at the time when 765 the  Act was passed in 1951; (3) that the Acquisition  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

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  Singh 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 enactment 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, particularly in Amritsar  These riots as well  as those which subsequently took place on the eve of  partition caused extensive damage to property and left a lot 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 all powers vested by  and under the said Act passed the Punjab Damaged Areas Act 11 of 1947  on  9th May 1947.  The Act so passed would  only  have force for two years from the date on which the  proclamation ceases  to have effect unless sooner repealed or  re-enacted by  an Act of the appropriate legislature.  The rule of  the Governor came to an end on 15th August 1947 and consequently the 1947 Act would cease to have, force on 15th August 1949. It appears from the statement of objects and reasons of  the 1947  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  buildings  or  to  control  salvage  of property  and its disposal or to indemnify teh 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 an  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 the same 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 embodied  practically the same provisions as 766 were  contained  in the 1947 Act.  Under this Act  no  fresh Notification in respect of the area Notified in the 1947 Act was  issue& and though Sections 1 to 3 of the 1949 Act  came into,  force  immediately after its  publication  the  other provisions of that Act were to come into force in any  urban area as the State Govt. by Notification may appoint.   These provisions  however  did  not  meet  the  need  for  planned development  of  the  damaged  areas  had  consequently  the Damaged  Area  Ordinance 16 of 1950 was promulgated  by  the Governor of Punjab on the 1st December 1950.  The  Ordinance was replaced by the present Act. Though  under sub. sec. (2) of Section 1 the Act extends  to the  whole of Punjab sub-sec. (3) was to come into force  at once within the local area of Amritsar Improvement Trust and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

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 Town Improvement Act 1922 while Land under Sec. 2(f) include$ 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  of  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 then 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 statement  of objections  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 be the sanctioned   scheme;  such  publications  being   conclusive evidence   of  the  Scheme  having  been  duly  framed   and sanctioned.   Under Sec. 6 the Trust shall within  3  months from  the date of the publication of the Scheme  udder  Sub- Section  3  of  Section  5  apply  to  the’  Collector   for acquisition 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 encumbrances 767 but subject to payment in due course of compensation by  the 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  Magistrate and if  not  to  apply  to  a Magistrate  to remove obstruction and to deliver  possession of  the land to the Improvement Trust.  Sec. 8 provides  for marking  and  measuring.  Sec. 9 requires the  Collector  to cause notices giving particulars as required under  sub-sec. (2)  inviting  claims lo be made to  him  for  compensation. Sec. 1 1 requires the Collector to make an enquiry into  the objections  and  claims made pursuant to the  notice  issued under sub-sec. 2(b) of Sec. 9, and 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 plots, the material thereon               and   other   sources  of   income   remaining

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             outstanding   as   notified   by   the   State               Government under Section 12; and               (d)   the  extent  of the  interest  of  every               person  claiming compensation, and the  market               value  of the interest of such persons at  the               time  of  publication  of  the  scheme   under               Section 4(1). Under  Sec. 12 the Trust shall as soon as possession of  the land  comprised in the sanctioned scheme is delivered to  it proceed to execute the scheme-but not later than 3 years  of the  sanction of the scheme submit for the scrutiny  of  the State  Govt. an accurate statement which shall  contain  the following particulars               (a)   the actual cost of the scheme;               (b)   the income derived from the scheme;               (c)   the particulars and the estimated  value               of  the  plots and any material  thereon  that               remain to be sold; and               (d)   the estimated value of the other sources               of Income from the scheme which remain out- 5-Ll 100SupCI/71  standing. 768 On  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  the award to be passed by the Collector and the payment of  com- pensation  are provided for in Sec. 13 and 16.   Section  14 provides  for the Collector’s award to be filed and Sec.  15 empowers  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 amount  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               notified  under  the  preceding  section,  the               Collector  shall  make an  award  apportioning               compensation   in   the   manner   hereinafter               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               (2)   Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in               any other law for the time being in force, the               total   compensation  payable  for  any   land               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 Sec. 12.               (3)   subject   to  the  provisions   of   the               Administration  of Evacuee Property Act  1950,               or  any other law on the subject for the  time               being  in force, the compensation  awarded  in               respect of the structures, if any, standing on               the  land  comprised in the  scheme  shall  be               payable to the persons known or believed to be               interested  in those structures  according  to               their  respective interests as  determined  by               the Collector under See. 11.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             Explanation:    In       computing        such               compensation,  the Collector shall assess  the               market value of the structures at the time  of               delivery  of  possession of the  land  to  the               Trust  and deduct from such value the cost  of               demolishing  them said removing  the  material               from the site.               7 69               (4)   The   total   compensation,   less   any               deductions that may be necessary on account of               the amounts, if any, payable under sub-section               (3),  shall  be paid to  the  various  persons               interested in proportion to the interests hold               by  them as determined by the Collector  under               sec. 1 1 (c).               Provided  that the amount paid to  any  person               shall  not  be less than the market  value  of               his,  interest as determined by the  Collector               under Sec. 11 (1) minus the cost of demolition               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  compensation  under  protest,  may require the Collector to make a reference to the Tribunal in respect   of  the  measurement  of  the  land,   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 drawn 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 maintain or modify the award passed by the  Collector and  order payment to the persons entitled to  it,  provided that  it shall not question the amounts notified under  Sec. 12.   The  award passed by the Tribunal is deemed  to  be  a decree and the statement of the grounds therefore a Judgment within the meaning of sub-section (2) and (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 uncertain   terms  laid  down  the  test  for   ascertaining reasonableness of the restrictions on the rights  guaranteed 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

to the larger interest of the general public, Applying  this test  it will be seen that persons who are affected  by  the Scheme  are  given an opportunity to fide  their  objections which have to be given due consideration by the Trust before finalising   the  scheme.   Their  objections  are   further considered by the Govt. before sanctioning the scheme.  They have also a right to take part in the proceedings before the Collector in the enquiry into claims, for compensation,  and are  given notice of the award made by the  Collector.   The compensation  payable  to them is. more in the 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 entitled to, something  more depending upon the income of the scheme  and the  expenditure  incurred therefore.  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  than  the  market  value  of  his  interest  as determined by the Collector under Sec. 11(d) minus 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 man opportunity 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 is designed to achieve a social purpose and  is for  the public good The compensation payable under the  Act is ’also determined on principles similar to those under the Land  Acquisition  Act or the Punjab Town  Improvement  Act. There is however no justification 771 in  the submission that option is given to acquire the  area either  under the Act or under the Punjab  Town  Improvement Act  according  to  the discretion of  the  Trust  which  is without guide-lines 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 Scheme  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

matter  of compensation 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   contention   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 under Sec. 3(a) of the Land Acquisition  Act and is comprehensive 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 determined  after  the scheme  is submitted and sanctioned by the Govt.  which  may take  several years and also there is a prohibition  against payment  of  interest on the amount of  compensation  unlike 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-see (2) of Sec. 12 the submission of the Scheme by the Trust is not to be later than-  3 years which does not mean necessarily that it  will take  3  years and may even take less if not  obstructed  by persons  affected.   In any case as we have said  where  the scheme  is for the benefit of all those who have  properties in  the  areas which are covered by the scheme and is  on  a profit sharing basis, there is no hardship or  disadvantage- 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 before 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  soon as the commercial building in  Dharam  Singh Market  which is being constructed at an estimated  cost  of Rs.  26 lakhs is completed.  In fact Ahata Bishan  Dass  and the adjoining scheme areas are ready.  In the meanwhile many of the persons who have applied 772 for alternate accommodation have for the time being been ac- commodated  by  the Trust in the stalls recently set  up  in Kesribagh  in  the immediate vicinity of the  Trust  office. Though  the  Petitioners  1  and  3  have  not  applied  for alternative  accommodation 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 building, as such there is no  question of an alternative accommodation 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 in letters Patent Appeal No. 187               of 1969 (Mulk Raj & Others Vs.  Trust) i.e. as               soon  as commercial buildings in Dharam  Singh               Market,  Ahata Bishan Dass and  the  adjoining               Scheme areas are ready,,/ the Trust would give               preference to the oustees from the scheme area               (Chowk  Phowara  to Jallianwala Bagh  in  Main

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

             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 rent 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 assurances 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 on 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. 773 The  further contention that Sec. 2(d) is discriminatory  of vague  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 Legislature which leaves little doubt that it was the damage caused by wholesale and serious rioting to buildings in certain urban ,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 the State Govt., unguided or  un- canalised  nor  for  that matter can it  be  said  that  the Notification issued on the 26th June 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 exhausted because the Govt.  had  already exercised  its power when it sanctioned Dharam Singh  Market Scheme, the learned Advocate has (not chosen to address  any arguments  or to substantiate 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 discrimination under Art. 14 or on the  scheme are  being  unreasonable or not in the interest  of  general public violating Art. 19 (1) (f) & (g) nor on the ground  of the compensation payable being inadequate or insufficient so as  to  infringe  the  guarantee under  Art.  31(2)  of  the Constitution   of  India.   The   petition  is   accordingly dismissed with costs. V.P.S.                             Petition dismissed. 774