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

2. 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 Government declared by a Notification under S. 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) GhantagharThe former scheme was sanctioned by the State Government 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 and 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 Section 2 (d) offends Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the damaged area as defined under that Section furnishes no guidelines, is arbitrary, unguided, uncanalised 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 S. 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 Article 31 (2) as it stood at the time when the Act was passed in 1951; (3) that the Acquisition under the Act cannot be said to be for a public purpose as not a single pie comes from the Government or is contributed by the local authority; and (4) that the impugned Notification sanctioning the two schemes is also void because once the Government had exercised the power by sanctioning Dharam Singh Market Scheme, the power of sanction under Section 5 is exhausted.

Reasoning:
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.