BACHAN SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 18-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 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 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.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.