IMPORTANT POINT
It is in public interest that issues settled by judgment of the court which have attained finality should not be permitted to be re-agitated all over again.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Article 136 - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 4 -Acquisition of 584.646 hectares of private land for construction of ‘Man Dam’ on the tributary of Narmada River - Aggrieved by inadequate measures adopted by Government of Madhya Pradesh for rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced families of the ‘Man Dam Project’, respondents 1 and 2 , tribals living in villages Khedi-Balwadi and Khanpura of District Dhar alongwith Respondent No. 3 a social activist working with the people of displaced families of Man Dam Project filed a writ petition as a PIL claiming appropriate reliefs-High Court held that there was substantial compliance of R & R Policy but directed the State to allot land to the adult son irrespective of the fact whether he had lost land or not-Appeals thereagainst-Marathon exercise that have been done giving rise to repeated rounds of litigation for determination of the question as to whether major sons would be included in the definition of displaced family or not was not really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provision which needs to be addressed since the entire issue was merely a question which arose out of a policy decision of Government of M.P. and at the most would be confined to interpretation of the R & R Policy formulated by State of M.P. - The R & R policy unequivocally laid down its entire emphasis on acquisition of land from a displaced family and that displacement also had to be 25% of the land acquired from the family by the Government- Thus even if displaced family had several major sons, allotment on account of acquisition to each major son did not arise in terms of the policy- When there had been no acquisition from each major son of family, question of allotment of land to all major sons of the family would be clearly contrary to the provision of the R & R Policy-Hence, direction of High Court for allotment of land to each major son of the displaced family held liable to be overturned-Appeal arising out of special leave petition of State of Madhya Pradesh allowed and appeal arising out of special leave petition of oustees disposed off with liberty to respondents-oustees to approach GRA or Appellate Forum of GRA in case they have been deprived off adequate compensation or benefit in any manner not in consonance with the R & R Policy (Paras 42 to 44, 50)
        Constitution of India,1950- Article 136 - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 4 -Appeals against judgment passed by High Court in a public interest petition against which the State of Madhya Pradesh as also the respondents alongswith two others which include a social activist have filed separate Special Leave Petitions -Held High Court was not correct in entertaining a writ petition all over again by way of a Public Interest Litigation when the question of implementation of R & R Policy had been considered and decided by High Court of Madhya Pradesh earlier giving rise to appeals up to Apex Court- Besides this, High Court in the impugned judgment itself had laid down that there had been substantial compliance of the R & R Policy of Government of M.P. and yet it was pleased to direct State to consider the question of allotment of 2 hectares of land to each major son of a displaced family overlooking the fact that if each major son of displaced family had not been separately deprived off 25% of the acquired land, then even as per the Policy, they were not entitled to 2 hectares of land- In that view of the matter also direction of High Court traveled beyond the scope of R & R Policy- High Court in any view had no reason to expand scope of R & R Policy by directing State of M.P. to allot land to each of displaced family (Para 46)
       Facts of the Case :
        A. 584.646 hectares of private land was acquired herein in the instant case for construction of ‘Man Dam’ on the tributary of Narmada River . Aggrieved by inadequate measures adopted by Government of Madhya Pradesh for rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced families of the ‘Man Dam Project’, respondents 1 and 2 , tribals living in villages Khedi-Balwadi and Khanpura of District Dhar alongwith Respondent No. 3 a social activist working with the people of displaced families of Man Dam Project filed a writ petition as a PIL claiming appropriate reliefs.High Court held that there was substantial compliance of R & R Policy but directed the State to allot land to the adult son irrespective of the fact whether he had lost land or not.
        B. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. The Court held that Marathon exercise that had been done giving rise to repeated rounds of litigation for determination of the question as to whether major sons would be included in the definition of displaced family or not was not really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provision which needed to be addressed since the entire issue was merely a question which arose out of a policy decision of Government of M.P. and at the most would be confined to interpretation of the R & R Policy formulated by State of M.P. The R & R policy unequivocally laid down its entire emphasis on acquisition of land from a displaced family and that displacement also had to be 25% of the land acquired from the family by the Government. Thus even if displaced family had several major sons, allotment on account of acquisition to each major son did not arise in terms of the policy. When there had been no acquisition from each major son of family, question of allotment of land to all major sons of the family would be clearly contrary to the provision of the R & R Policy.Hence, direction of High Court for allotment of land to each major son of the displaced family held liable to be overturned.
        B. Appeal arising out of special leave petition of State of Madhya Pradesh was allowed and appeal arising out of special leave petition of oustees was disposed of with liberty to respondents-oustees to approach GRA or Appellate Forum of GRA in case they had been deprived of adequate compensation or benefit in any manner not in consonance with the R & R Policy.

JUDGEMENT

Gyan Sudha Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. These two appeals arise out of the judgement and order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in a public interest petition bearing Writ Petition No. 48 of 2004 against which the State of Madhya Pradesh as also the respondents Bheru Singh alongswith two others which include a social activist have filed separate Special Leave Petitions bearing Nos. 30685/2009 and 10163/2010 respectively giving rise to these two appeals which are confined to some of the directions only, that were issued by the High Court in its impugned judgement, to be stated hereinafter.

3. The material factual details of these two appeals have a prolonged history giving rise to a labyrinth of litigation which emerged as a consequence of displacement of large number of persons from a massive area of agricultural and homestead land which were in occupation of the oustees/displaced persons, due to land acquisition which was done for the purpose of construction of Man Dam on the tributary of Narmada River in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This had given rise to the filing of several other writ petitions in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the past which gave rise to the appeals reaching even upto this Court and are reported in1 (2000) 10 SCC 664,2 (2005) 4 SCC 32 and 3 (2011) 7 SCC 639 which are commonly referred to as Narmada Bachao Ist judgment, Narmada Bachao IInd judgment and Narmada Bachao IIIrd judgement.

4. But before we discuss the relevance and implications of these judgements on the instant appeals, it would be relevant to relate the historical background of the matter giving rise to a spate of litigations in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In this context, it may be stated that a detailed Project Report (DPR) for the construction of ‘Man Dam’ on the tributary of Narmada River at Village Jirabad, Tehsil Gandhwani, District Dhar, having a total submergence area of 1168.67 hectares in 17 villages of Tehsil Dhar and Gandhwani, District Dhar, M.P. was submitted in July, 1982. A Rehabilitation and Re-settlement (R & R) was framed by the State of M.P. for the project affected families (PAF) and oustees of Narmada Project including ‘Man Dam’. This R & R policy was later on amended several times in which the latest amendment was made in the year 2003. The Planning Commission of India accorded investment clearance for the ‘Man Project’ out of total submergence area of 1168.67 hectares and 584.646 hectares of private land was acquired by invoking the provision of Land Acquisition, 1894. In the construction of the ‘Man Dam’ which took place between the year 1991-1994, 1266 families were affected, out of which 448 families lost their land. Out of these 448 families, 62 families opted for land as per the policy and they were given land in the year 1994 itself. The remaining 386 families accepted full cash compensation in terms of Clause 5.1 of R & R policy.

5. However, since the displaced persons were still dissatisfied, the Government of Madhya Pradesh as a welfare measure took a decision in 2002 to grant ‘Special Rehabilitation Grant’ (SRG) to the families/oustees who had lost their land in submergence in the Narmada Project in order to enable them to purchase land of their own choice to the extent they lost in the submergence on condition that they will not claim any land from the Government. The benefit of SRG was also extended to the families/oustees who had lost their land in submergence in the ‘Man Project’. Out of the 386 families who had accepted full cash compensation in terms of Clause 5.1 of R & R policy, 337 oustees/PAF came forward and accepted the SRG. The intention behind the approval of SRG was that every oustees’ level of living should not be lower than what it was before displacement, even if they cannot be made better off. The oustees who had been provided land for land by the Government were not eligible for Special Rehabiliation Grant.

6. However, while

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 93

IMPORTANT POINT It is in public interest that issues settled by judgment of the court which have attained finality should not be permitted to be re-agitated all over again.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is in public interest that issues settled by judgment of the court which have attained finality should not be permitted to be re-agitated all over again.