Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : The point arising for decision in this appeal by special leave is a very short one and refutes to the proper construction of the definition of damaged area in S. 2(d) of the Punjab Development and Damaged Areas Act, 1951 which will hereafter be referred to as the Act.

2. A few facts are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate how this point arises. The appellant claims to be the trustee of a public Trust created for the management of certain properties situated in Amritsar. Of the properties belonging to the trust is one which is said to be a dharamshala. By a resolution of the Amritsar Improvement Trust dated March 21 1957 the Improvement Trust decided to acquire a portion of this property for the purpose of widening a road under a development scheme framed under S. 3 of the Act. This section enacts:

"3. The trust may frame a scheme or schemes for the development of a damaged area, providing for all or any of the matters mentioned in Section 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 shall be deemed to have been framed or sanctioned under this Act."

Section 4 makes provision for the publication of the schemes setting out with particularity the properties which would be affected by the scheme and specifying the period within which the objections to the scheme would be received. Section 5 makes provision for the consideration of the objections which might be put forward under S. 4 and sub-ss. (3) and (4) of this section read:

"5. (3) The State Government shall then notify the scheme, either in original or as modified by it and the scheme so published shall be deemed to be the sanctioned scheme.

(4) The publication under sub-section (3) shall be conclusive evidence that a scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned."

Thereafter S. 6 proceeds to make provision for the acquisition of property in the damaged area" and there are other provisions as regards the ascertainment and payment of compensation but as these are not relevant to the appeal, no reference to them is needed.

3. It is common ground that a scheme has been framed under S. 3 and this has been finalised after considering objections. It was in pursuance of this scheme that the Improvement Trust took steps to effect the acquisition of the property bearing Municipal No. 2320/1, 884/9 belonging to the appellant-trust. The appellant filed a suit for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings were illegal and ultra vires and for a permanent injunction restraining the Improvement Trust from proceeding with the acquisition. The suit was, however, withdrawn by reason of a Consent Memo which was filed and subsequently the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court challenging the validity of the action of the Improvement Trust and praying for appropriate reliefs quashing the proceedings for the acquisition. The petition, however, was summarily dismissed by the High Court by order dated April 20, 1961. The further petition fled by the appellant praying for a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) was also dismissed. Thereafter the appellant obtained special leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court and that is how the appeal is now before us.

4.Though several points have been taken in the memorandum of appeal to this Court, learned Counsel confined his arguments to only one point to which we shall refer immediately and which alone requires to be dealt with in the appeal. We have already pointed out that the acquisition now sought to be made and which, it is contended, is illegal and not justified by law, is under a scheme which has been framed under S. 3 of the Act. Under the terms of the provision the Improvement Trust could frame a scheme only for the development of "a damaged area". "Damaged area" is defined in the Act by S. 2 (d) which runs:

2. (d) Damaged