PERMSHRI DAS BHANNA MAL Vs. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ challenge the validity of certain provisions of 'punjab Act X of 1961 (Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951)'.

(2.) THE facts briefly are these. In order to deal with certain areas of the town of Amritsar which had been badly damaged during the riots of 1917, the Punjab Government prepared a scheme in 1949 under Section 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. This scheme covered the areas known as Bazar Pashamwala and Katra Jaimal Singh and notices were issued inviting objections which were filed in due course. In 1950 the Punjab Government issued the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Ordinance and this was succeeded by the Act in question, namely Punjab Act x of 1951, the provisions of which were almost exactly the same as the provisions of the previous Ordinance. In the meantime the Amritsar Improvement Trust had notified another scheme in 1951. This scheme superseded the previous scheme and was in fact nothing more than a modification in some respects of the original scheme issued in 1949. Objections to the new scheme were filed and the final scheme as sanctioned was notified on 30-11-1951. The petitioners are four persons who own property in tne areas covered by the scheme and their mam objection is twofold. In the first place, they contend that the provisions of Act X of 1951 offend against Article 31 of the Constitution inasmuch as they do not provide for the payment of adequate com-pensation for property compulsorily acquired under the Act. In the second place, it is urged that the scheme as prepared and notified was not in accordance with law as the procedure laid down. by tne Act was not followed.

(3.) I shall first consider the question whether the Act is 'ultra vires' the Constitution. Mr. Grover has contended that the Act offends against the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution because (a) the Trust is authorised to execute the scheme before assessing compensation and this involves the demolition of the structures standing upon it before compensation in respect of their has been assessed, (b) no time limit for giving the award has been fixed by the Act and the Trust may delay the matter unreasonably and (c) the provision in Section 13 whereby the cost of demolition and removal of the material is to be deducted from the market value of the property is bad inasmuch as it compels the subject to accept much less than just compensation as contemplated by Article 31. He also contended that the Act is against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.