IMPORTANT POINT
– Courts cannot dtermine whether a particular policy is correct or not.

Ramalingam Sudhakar, J.—We have heard Mr. Altaf Mehraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to claims of residents of certain villages of District Bandipora who are affected by the establishment of Kishanganga Hydroelectric Power Project (330 MW) by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited for and on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. For the establishment of this Hydroelectric Power Project vast portion of land has been acquired and people living in and around that area were to be resettled and rehabilitated keeping in mind the best interest of the State to develop infrastructure for enhancing the power sector and at the same time provide appropriate resettlement to these displaced people and also to rehabilitate them.

3. In the year 2007, the Ministry of Rural Development Department of Land Resources in its resolution dated 31st October, 2007, formulated a National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 inter alia providing various parameters that has to be considered while taking up the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced persons in relation to development of infrastructure by the State. Chapter-It contains the objectives of the policy which is as follows:

“2. Objective of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy.

2.1 The objectives of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy are as follows:—

(a) to minimize displacement and to promote, as far as possible, non-displacing or least-displacing alternatives;

(b) to ensure adequate rehabilitation package and expeditious implementation of the rehabilitation process with the active participation of the affected families;

(c) to ensure that special care is taken for protecting the rights of the weaker sections of society, especially members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to create obligations on the State for their treatment with concern and sensitivity;

(d) to provide a better standard of living, making concerted efforts for providing sustainable income to the affected families;

(e) to integrate rehabilitation concerns into the development planning and implementation process; and

(f) where displacement is on account of land acquisition, to facilitate harmonious relationship between the requiring body and affected families through mutual cooperation.”

4. In so far as the present case is concerned the startup for putting up the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Power Project started in the year 2007. Petitioners and few others numbering about 245 claim that they are displaced families, however, according to the 6th respondent, the project affected families are 185, which is not a matter in dispute at this point of time.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Government and the 6th respondent were called upon to approach the University of Kashmir to formulate resettlement and rehabilitation plan. It is a plea of the petitioner that in the year 2009, a plan was drawn but has not been given effect to. From document at page 94 in the letter of Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, dated 21.10.2013 addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, we find that the resettlement and rehabilitation plan for Kishanganga Hydroelectric Power Project, Bandipora, prepared by the University of Kashmir on behalf of National Hydroelectric Power Project Limited and revised by District Administration in consultation with member of the Legislative Assembly, Gurez and Bandipora in the present of NHPC Ltd. Officers, certain amounts have been approved. This plan is annexure-C to the writ petition at page 96 called “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan for Kishanganga HEP (330MW) NHPC Ltd., Government of Jammu & Kashmir office of the Deputy Commissioner May, 2015”. It has four chapters and ten tables and two appendices and the figure of the