Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.: The three Petitioners who are residents of Amritsar have filed this Petition under Art. 32. of the Constitution, challenging the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act 10 of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act ) as being violative of Arts, 14, 19 (1) (f) & (g) and 31 (2) of the Constitution of India.

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) Ghantaghar. The 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.

3. In order to appreciate the several contentions it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act but before we do so it may be useful also to briefly set out the legislative history of the enactment and the purpose for which it was enacted. Prior to the partition of India there were serious communal rioting in March 1947 in some parts of Punjab, particularly in Amritsar. These riots as well as those which subsequently took place on the eve of partition caused extensive damage to property and left a lot of debris and refuge which had to be cleared. The Governor of Punjab who had by a proclamation under Sec. 93 of the Government of India Act 1935 assuming to himself all powers vested by and under the said Act passed the Punjab Damaged Areas Act 11 of 1947