# BACHAN SINGH & ORS v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 762
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-02-18
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bachan-singh-ors-v-state-of-punjab-ors-5408
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

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 violaJive 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 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 wh oh 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 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 provisions 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 ~mG
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 11ner for the improvement of the damaged areas of the city and .the
restrictions imposed are protected by Art. 19(5) and (6) of the Const1tu1ion. (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 an

## Text

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 violaJive 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 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 wh oh 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 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 provisions 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 ~mG
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 11ner for the improvement of the damaged areas of the city and .the
restrictions imposed are protected by Art. 19(5) and (6) of the Const1tu1ion. (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 comprehensive 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 Constitution 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 Notifications 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 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) <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 provisions 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 provisions 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 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, 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 appropriate 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 Notification 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 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 3jlld consequently 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 Improvement 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_jections 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 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 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 possession 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 claimi111g 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 accurate 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 outstanding.
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 compengation are p1ovided for in Sec. 13 aind 16. Section 14 provides 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 believed 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 anyth\ng contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the total compensation 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 determined by the Collector under Sec. 11.
Explanation : In computing
such
compensation,
the Collect<;>r 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 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 determined 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 maintain or modify the award passed by the Collector and order payment 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 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
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 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 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 Collector in the enquiry into claims, for compensation, and are gi\ren
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 according 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 comprehensive enough to include buildings also.
It is next urged that compensation so determined is not immediately 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
interest 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 necessarily 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 accommodated 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 illO 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 ~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 Bishan 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 Legislature 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-canalised 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 violating 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.