SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Narmada Bachao Andolan & Others – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
Miscellaneous Applications No. 2279 of 2018 and 610 of 2020 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2022
Decided on : 22.9.2022
Constitution of India -- Art. 142 -- clarification of directions -- Narmada water dispute -- resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected families -- compensation -- quantum of Rs. 60 lakhs per family fixed as comprehensive settlement package -- that package incapable of being broken down into per hectare determination -- impermissible for applicant to claim any amount in excess of that determination -- order of this Court and directions issued under Art. 142 not susceptible to clarification or modification in Miscellaneous Application of the nature that has been placed before this Court -- application dismissed. (2000) 10 SCC 664 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2002 referred to. [Paras 27 to 29
JUDGMENT
Chandrachud, J.
Miscellaneous Application No 2279 of 2018
1. The Miscellaneous Application for clarification/modification has been filed by Ms. Archana, a resident of Village Bhawariya, Tehsil Kukshi, District Dhar in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. Before we proceed to analyze the application for clarification/modification, it is necessary to extract the relief which is specifically sought, at this stage :
“a) Clarify/Modify that the order dated 8.2.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in IA No. 42, 43, 50, 51 and 52, 53 in WP (C) No. 328 of 2002 read with terms of NWDTA, MP R&R Policy 1989, judgments of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2000(10) SCC 664 and 2005 (4) SCC 32; entitles PAF’s to amount @ Rs. 30 Lacs/Ha. for minimum 2 ha. of land, or to the extent of land he/ she is losing, subject to maximum for 8 ha of irrigable/cultivable land;”
3. A brief history of the dispute is set out hereafter.
4. On 12 December 1979, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribuna “Tribunal” rendered its final order and decision. Among the issues which were dealt with by the Tribunal was the issue pertaining to resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected families. Sub-Clause IV(7) of Clause XI (Directions Regarding Submergence Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons) provides for the allotment of agricultural lands to every displaced family. Clause IV(7) is extracted below :
“IV(7): Allotment of Agricultural Lands : Every displaced family from whom more than 25% of its land holding is acquired shall be entitled to and be allotted irrigable land to the extent of land acquired from it subject to the prescribed ceiling in the state concerned and a minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres) per family, the irrigation facilities being provided by the State in whose territory the allotted land is situated : This land shall be transferred to the oustee family if it agrees to take it. The price charged for it would be as mutually agreed between Gujarat and the concerned State. Of the price to be paid for the land a sum equal to 50% of the compensation payable to the oustee family for the land acquired from it will be set off as an initial instalment of payment. The balance cost of the allotted land shall be recovered from the allottee in 20 yearly instalments free of interest. Where land is allotted in Madhya Pradesh or Maharashtra, Gujarat having paid for it vide Clause IV(6)(i) supra, all recoveries for the allotted land shall be credited to Gujarat.”
5. The above extract indicates that the entitlement for the allotment of agricultural land for a displaced family from whom more than 25 per cent of the landholding was acquired was in the following terms :
(i) Allotment of irrigable land to the extent of land acquired from the family;
(ii) Subject to the prescribed ceiling in the state concerned; and
(iii) A minimum of two hectares (five acres) to be allotted per family.
6. The rest of the provisions which have been extracted above deal with the manner in which the price would be adjusted or, as the case may be, paid from the compensation payable to the ‘oustee’ families.
7. In September 1989, the State of Madhya Pradesh formulated a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy “R&R Policy”. Clause 3.2 of the R&R Policy was in the following terms :
“3 Allotment of Agricultural Land:
[…]
3.2 Without taking care of it that whether the land for allotment is government land or the purchased land is personal land, 2 hectares of land shall be allotted to those entitled oustee families whose agricultural land has been acquired. If the acquired land is of more than 2 hectares, then as far as possible, the same shall be allotted, but the maximum limit of land to be allotted shall not be more than 8 hectares.”
8. Hence, R&R Policy stipulated that two hectares of land would be allotted to ‘oustee’ families whose lands were acquired. However, if more than two hectares of land was acquired, the same would be allotted subject to a maximum of eight h
The court established that compliance with compensation and rehabilitation provisions under Act 30 of 2013 is mandatory before dispossession of landowners.
The State has a duty to provide timely rehabilitation and fair compensation to project-affected persons, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PESA Act, Forest Rights Act, and RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013 were not applicable to the petitioners' case, and the Orissa Rehabilitation and ....
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.