Case: Bachan Singh &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

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 S. 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. 12. 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 Rupees 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 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 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 (Punj) (Mulk Raj v. 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 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." 13. 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 are 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. 14. The further contention that S. 2 (d) is discriminatory or 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 Government unguided or uncanalised nor for that matter can it be said that the Notification issued on the 26 June 1962 is vague. 15. In so far as the contention that the impugned Notification sanctioning the two schemes are void as the power under S. 5 of the Act was exhausted because the Government 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. 16. In our view none of the objections are sustainable either on the ground of discrimination under Art.14 or on the scheme being unreasonable or not in the interest of general public violating Art. 19 (1) (f) and (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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 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 guidelines 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 S. 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 provisitions 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 compensation or in respect of any other matter. The section merely incorporates by reference to 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 S. 3 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act and is comprehensive enough to include buildings alsoIt is true that the finalisation of the scheme will take time but under the provisions of sub-see. (2) of S. 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 scheme13. 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 are 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 Constitution14. The further contention that S. 2 (d) is discriminatory or 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 Government unguided or uncanalised nor for that matter can it be said that the Notification issued on the 26 June 1962 is vague15. In so far as the contention that the impugned Notification sanctioning the two schemes are void as the power under S. 5 of the Act was exhausted because the Government 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 it16. In our view none of the objections are sustainable either on the ground of discrimination under Art.14 or on the scheme being unreasonable or not in the interest of general public violating Art. 19 (1) (f) and (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.