Narmada Bachao Andolan vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(SC) 518

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Verma,J. M. Panchal and B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
Appellants: Narmada Bachao Andolan
Vs.
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2082, 2083-2097 and 2098-2112 of 2011
Decided On: 11.05.2011

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sanjay Parikh, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Swapnil Verma and Nikhil Nayyar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: P.S. Patwalia and Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sr. Advs., Sunny Choudhary, Ajay Chauhan, C.D. Singh, Suparna Srivastava, Ran Swarup Sharma, Ashok Bhan and D.S. Mehra, Advs.

Headnote:A) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.11 R.35, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.21, Art.300(a), Art.37, Art.38, Art.39, Art.41, Art.43, Art.46, Art.47, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.340, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT : ., FOREST CONSERVATION ACT : S.2, INTER STATE WATER DISPUTES ACT : , INCOME TAX ACT : ., LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.11, S.11(2), S.16, S.17, S.18, S.4, S.4(1), S.48, S.50, S.54, S.6, S.9, MADHYA PRADESH LAND REVENUE CODE : S.117, Madhya Pradesh Pariyojana Ke Karan Visthapit Vyakti Punahsthapan Adhiniyam : S.11(4), PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT : ., RAILWAYS ACT : S.73, Railways Conference Association Rules : R.161(a), RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT : -
       Narmad Bachao Andhalan, an NGO representing several landowners and tillers displaced by the construction of dams and projects on the Narmada river by the respondent state, filed a public interest litigation in the seeking a number of reliefs, inter-alia, to stop all eviction; directions for serving of life supplies such as drinking water and electricity; not to take any other coercive measures, to stop closure of the radial gates of the Omkareshwar dam above crest level of EL 179.60 M; and to stop the blocking of the sluice gates below crest level, until all Project Affected Families (hereinafter called PAFs) were rehabilitated as per the R & R Policy. Further reliefs sought included the issuance of appropriate directions for an assessment by the Grievance Redressal Authority (hereinafter called GRA) for the Omkareshwar Project of the status of relief and rehabilitation of the oustees affected at Full Reservoir Level (hereinafter called FRL) and Back Water Level (hereinafter called BWL) within a stipulated period. From time to time the High Court gave several directions and reliefs in the writ petitions. These have been challenged by the respondent on various ground including the maintainability of the public interest petition and the impossibility of allotting alternative land to the ousees as directed in pursuance of the R & P Policy framed there funder.

       . Held even in public interest litigation proper pleading is necessary which is lacking in this case. However in view of the concert the court has for the purpose of rehabilitation of the ousted persons, this matter was taken up by he court. (Para 15)
       Held the High Court ought to have directed the oustees to approach the GRA for redressal of their grievances and if any person wasfurther aggrieved of the directions issued by the GRA, he could have approached the High Court after full fledged adjudication of the factual issues by the GRA.
       Held that acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/fundamental right of the displaced persons. However, they are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of the concerned project.(Para 103)
       Held further that it is not for the court to examine the claim of the Government that majority have accepted SRG, an amount equivalent to the price of land that may be purchased outside instead of alternative land and the same is left to be decided by the GRA subject to appeal to High Court.
       Separate orders have been passed in respect of different appeals.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. All these appeals relate to the establishment of the Omkareshwar Dam on the Narmada river in Madhya Pradesh. As these appeals are inter-connected and have been filed against interim orders passed by the High Court in the same writ petition, they have been heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. However, for convenience Civil Appeal Nos. 2115-2116 of 2011 are dealt with first.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2115-2116 of 2011

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 4457 of 2007 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., wherein the High Court as an interim measure, has issued directions, inter-alia, for allotment of agricultural land to the displaced persons in lieu of the land acquired for construction of the dam in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (hereinafter called as 'R & R Policy') as amended on 3.7.2003. The High Court direction applied even to those oustees who had already withdrawn the compensation, if such oustees opt for such land and refund 50% of the compensation amount received by them. The balance cost of the allotted land would be deposited by the allottees in 20 equal yearly installments as stipulated in Clause (5.3) of the R & R Policy, and to treat a major son of the family whose land has been acquired as a separate family for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land.

3. FACTUAL MATRIX:

Facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are as follows:

(A) The Narmada river starts at Amarkantak. It flows through Madhya Pradesh for 1077 km, then forms a common boundary in Maharashtra for 74 km (35 km with MP and 39 km with Maharashtra) and then passes through Gujarat for 161 km before meeting the Arabian Sea after a total length of 1312 km. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal apportioned the water in the Narmada between Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, subject to review after 45 years.

(B) The State of Madhya Pradesh, conducted a survey in 1955 for the establishment of hydro-power projects in the Narmada basin at different sites including Barwaha (Omkareshwar Project). In 1983, Narmada Valley Development (Irrigation) Department (hereinafter called NVD) was set up and further studies were conducted for the establishment of hydro-power projects.

(C) The Omkareshwar Dam - an intra-state project for generating 520 mega watts of power, which also involved the irrigation of 1.47 lakh hectares of agricultural land, was approved by the State Government, with an assessment that on the completion of the project, 30 villages would be submerged at the full reservoir level i.e. 196.60 mtrs.

(D) The Government of Madhya Pradesh framed a rehabilitation and resettlement policy in 1985 (hereinafter called 'R & R Policy') for the oustees of all the Narmada projects in the State. The said policy was amended from time to time as is evident from the R & R Policies dated: 9th June, 1987; 5th September, 1989; 7th June, 1991; and 27th August 1993.

The said policy provided for the allotment of a minimum of 2 hectares of agricultural land; irrigation facilities at government cost; grant-in-aid for small and marginal farmers and SC/ST families; and to meet the entire cost of the allotted land. The policy further provided that the allotment of agricultural land would be carried out much in advance, before dam construction reached crest level. The land required for allotment would be procured in the common area from the farmers having holdings of more than 4 hectares of land.

The State authorities obtained environmental clearance for the Omkareshwar project from the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 13.10.1993. The Ministry of Welfare granted clearance on 8.10.1993. The Planning Commission also granted clearance on condition of compliance with welfare and environmental clearances vide order dated 25.5.2001.

The Central Electricity Authority ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 518

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIADeepak Verma,J. M. Panchal and B. S. Chauhan, JJ.Appellants: Narmada Bachao AndolanVs.Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.Civil Appeal Nos. 2082, 2083-2097 and 2098-2112 of 2011Decided On: 11.05.2011

Cases Referred (95)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Verma,J. M. Panchal and B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
Appellants: Narmada Bachao Andolan
Vs.
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2082, 2083-2097 and 2098-2112 of 2011
Decided On: 11.05.2011