SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., N.V. RAMANA, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Narmada Bachao Andolan – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
IA NOS.42,43,50-51 & 52-53 IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 328/2002
WITH
In the Matter of: Kailash Awasya and others etc. etc. – Applicants
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO.7663/2016
Decided On : 08-02-2017
Facts of Case:
Matter concerning rehabilitation of 'project affected families', consequent upon implementation of Sardar Sarovar Project. Rehabilitation packages had to be offered to 4998 project affected families in State of Madhya Pradesh. Out of these 'project affected families', 4774 families opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', namely, they would accept cash payment as compensation and would purchase land out of said payment.
Findings of Court:
All connected petitions/applications are disposed of in such terms. Payment in consonance with instant order, (to 681 project affected families) by concerned State Government shall first be released to Narmada Valley Development Authority which in turn shall deposit compensation payable to 681 project affected families', in t account of Grievance Redressal Authority, within two months from today. Such amount shall positively be released, to concerned 681 project affected families, within one month thereafter. Same procedure is directed to be followed with respect to 1358 project affected families which are stated to have been duped.
Result : Petition disposed of with observations.
ORDER
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI.
We have heard this matter over a number of days. The instant exercise is being carried out, so as to arrive at an equitable settlement, for the rehabilitation of the 'project affected families', consequent upon the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar Project. The figures, which we will indicate in our order, may be treated as tentative. It will be open to others similarly situate, to seek the same relief, by establishing their credentials (before the Grievance Redressal Authority).
2. We are informed, that rehabilitation packages, had to be offered to 4998 project affected families' in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Out of these 'project affected families', 4774 families opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', namely, they would accept cash payment as compensation, and would purchase land out of the said payment. The aforestated payment was to be made in two installments. The first installment would be spent as earnest money, and the second installment would constitute the final payment for executing the sale deed. Out of the 4774 families, who had opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', 4264 families are stated to have accepted, both installments. Out of the 4998 project affected families', according to the learned Attorney General (and the other learned counsel representing the concerned State Governments), 4264 have been fully compensated. These 4264 project affected families' are not entitled to any further compensation.
3. Out of those, who had opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', 386 families were extended the first installment only, and could not be favoured with the second installment. They are disputants before this Court. In addition to these disputants, there were 120 families, who did not accept any money whatsoever, and another 4 families which were in litigation with reference to the compensation payable. Calculated in terms of the figures, indicated hereinabove, 510 (386 + 120 + 4) 'project affected families', are still entitled to compensation, as they had not been extended full compensation. This position has been acknowledged by the Union of India (as also, the concerned State Governments).
4. Besides those who opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', there were some families who had sought land in lieu of land, and not cash payment, under the 'Special Rehabilitation Package'. In fact, we are informed, there were 224 such families. Out of those 224 families, 53 families accepted the land offered to them, without any objection. These 53 project affected families, according to the learned Attorney General (and other learned counsel representing the concerned State Governments), have been fully compensated, and as such, their claim cannot be treated as a surviving claim. The remaining 171 families, have not been compensated, even though they are 'project affected families'. These 171 project affected families' are admittedly entitled to their rehabilitation claim.
5. Based on the figures, depicted in the foregoing two paragraphs, it is apparent, that 681 families are yet to be extended compensation (510 'project affected families', which had originally opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package' + 171 families which had claimed land in lieu of land).
6. During the course of our deliberations, it came to be accepted at one stage, that compensation to these 681 families should be determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. However, based on the suggestions made at the behest of the learned counsel for the applicants, that the land value in the vicinity ranges from Rupees fifteen lakhs per hectare, to Rupees eighty lakhs per hectare, we were of the view, that it would be more appropriate to finally determine the compensation, here and now. The average suggested payment at the behest of the learned counsel for the applicants would be in the range of Rupees thirty lakhs per hectare, and as such, every affected family would be entitl
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.