NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Writ Petition (Civil), 328 of 2002, Judgment Date: Feb 08, 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IA NOS.42,43,50-51 & 52-53
IN
WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 328/2002
Narmada Bachao Andolan ..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents
In the Matter of:
Kailash Awasya and others etc. etc. ..Applicants
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO.7663/2016
O R D E R
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 entitled to
approximately, Rupees sixty lakhs, in terms of their entitlement (for two
hectares of land) as compensation. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney
General for India suggested, that the agreed figure be, fixed at Rupees
forty five lakhs, in lieu of two hectares of land to which they are
entitled, and that, the matter be concluded here and now itself.
7. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the suggestions
made at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are
satisfied in directing the concerned authority, to pay compensation to the
681 'project affected families', who have yet to receive compensation, and
who have been fully described above, at the rate of Rupees sixty lakhs per
family, as a matter of full and final settlement. An undertaking in this
behalf should be obtained, before the amount of compensation is released.
8. It is also apparent, that a large number of families, out of
the 4264 families which had received both installments, under the 'Special
Rehabilitation Package', were duped. The number of duped 'project affected
families', indicated in the Justice S.S. Jha Commission's Report, is 1358.
This number is affirmed by the learned Attorney General for India, and
confirmed by the respective State counsel. Referring to these 1358
families, the Jha Commission in its report of January, 2016, had
observed as under:
“(29) Poor oustees particularly tribals have been looted by middlemen.
They have lost their livelihood and are not daily wagers. Their
installments have been siphoned off by the middlemen. When oustees
appeared before the Commission were not even having clothes to wear. They
have wrapped small cloth or towel round their waist when they appeared
before the Commission.”
(emphasis is ours)
It is in the above circumstances, that the Jha Commission recorded the
following conclusions, in its report:
“CONCLUSION
1. The reason for fake sale deeds is a faulty SRP policy of the
Government. The Government was not having sufficient irrigated agricultural
lands in their Land Banks near the R & R sites. The Policy itself is
against Narmada Award, and the judgment of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court
has observed that the PAFs and PAPs should live better life has been
frustrated by this Policy.
(i). By not allowing any scrutiny of the sale deeds and free hand has been
given to the Rehabilitation Officers and Land Acquisition Officers in
disbursing the compensation which resulted into large number of fake sale
deeds.
(ii) The free access to middlemen in the Office of NVDA in getting the
money withdrawn of the oustees also reflects about the interest of
middlemen and nexus with NVDA officials. Though evidence is not received
against the NVDA officials all the oustees have stated that they were made
to sit outside the NVDA office and their work was done by the middlemen and
they were made to sign on the papers without explaining the contents
discloses that NVDA officials had obtained signatures or thumb impressions
of the oustees without explaining the contents demonstrate irregularity on
their part and they are prima facie responsible for large number of fake
registries.
2. The quality of construction was very poor without any planning. No
geographical mapping was done before selecting the R & R sites whereby
cultivable good black cotton soil is converted into house building sites
for residential plots. There was a faulty policy of not establishing a
laboratory to test the soil for carrying out constructions on the black
cotton soil. The construction was done on the R & R sites on common maps
and designs of the building. Superior officers had never cared to visit R &
R sites to examine the construction work. The Government has found 40
engineers responsible for substandard quality of construction, but has not
cared to rectify the defect after finding the substandard construction.
Most of the places the expenditure on construction has gone waste as the R
& R sites are not occupied by the oustees or they are occupied by very few
PAPs and PAFs. Thus, the expenditure on these sites is waste of money.
3. The NVDA has not maintained proper records relating to livelihood
grants and alternative livelihood which itself demonstrate that there was
large scale corruption in the livelihood grants and alternative livelihood.
The officers of NVDA involved in allotment of house plot sites have not
followed the Rules framed by the Government in allotting the plots. They
have allotted the plots in an arbitrary matter and usurp the power of
changing the allotment which was not vested with them. Thus, this shows
their corrupt intention. Any arbitrary action attracts the vice of mala
fide. The officers involved in allotment of plots are wholly responsible
for irregularities and corruption in allotment and change of plots.”
(emphasis is ours)
9. We are of the considered view, that even though the above-
mentioned 1358 project affected families were paid both installments, they
need to be further compensated, so as to alleviate their hardship, as they
have not been able to purchase land in lieu of land, not because of their
own fault or lapse, but because they were duped. This would enable them to
purchase alternative land at the lesser rate suggested by the learned
counsel for the applicants. It is in the above view of the matter, that we
hereby direct the concerned authorities, to pay these 1358 project affected
families, a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs per family. While making the
instant payment, earlier installments made to such families, shall be
deducted (from out of the sum of Rupees fifteen lakhs). At the time of
making the above payment, the concerned authority shall obtain an
undertaking from the concerned 'project affected family', that the instant
payment would be as a matter of final settlement of their claim, arising
out of the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar Project. Any such
claimant, who fails to furnish the above undertaking, would not be entitled
to any payment of compensation.
10. The above order takes into consideration the issue of
compensation, towards all 'project affected families'.
11. We have not addressed the issue of the amenities, that needed
to have been extended to the concerned families, in terms of the Narmada
Water Disputes Tribunal Award, dated 12.12.1979. In order to address any
such grievance (with reference to the amenities postulated under the
Tribunal's award, referred to above), we permit such of the 'project
affected families', who have any grievance, to raise the same, before the
concerned Grievance Redressal Authority, within one month from today. In
case such a representation is made, and is accepted by the concerned
Grievance Redressal Authority, the concerned State Government shall
implement the recommendation, as expeditiously as possible, without raising
any unnecessary objection. In case, any of the “project affected families”
is not satisfied with the recommendations made by the Grievance Redressal
Authority (on the representation, or alternatively, if no decision is taken
thereon, within three months of registration of such representation), it
shall be open to such family, to pursue its cause before a Court of
competent jurisdiction, in consonance with law.
12. All connected petitions/applications are disposed of in the
above terms. Payment in consonance with the instant order, (to the 681
'project affected families', referred to above) by the concerned State
Government shall first be released to the Narmada Valley Development
Authority (for short 'NVDA'), which in turn shall deposit the compensation
payable to the 681 'project affected families', in the account of the
Grievance Redressal Authority, within two months from today. The above
amount shall positively be released, to the concerned 681 project affected
families, within one month thereafter. The same procedure is directed to
be followed with respect to the 1358 project affected families, which are
stated to have been duped.
13. All the occupants including all the 'project affected families'
shall vacate the submergence area under reference, on or before 31.07.2017,
and in case there are individuals in the submergence area, after the
aforesaid deposit has been made into the account of the Grievance Redressal
Authority, after 31.07.2017, it shall be open to the State Government to
remove all such individuals forcibly.
14. The order passed hereinabove, is exclusively directed towards
the resettlement and rehabilitation of the 'project affected families', in
the State of Madhya Pradesh. We hereby direct the States of Gujarat and
Maharashtra to conclude all the commuted resettlement and rehabilitation
activities, in the respective States, within three months from today.
15. In view of the consolidated order passed by us today, all
pending litigations, civil and criminal, emerging out of the
recommendations made by the Jha Commission, in the report dated January,
2016, shall come to an end.
16. The instant order has been passed by us in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and with the
tacit consent of the Union of India (and the concerned State Governments),
and shall not ever be treated as a precedent, or be cited for
similar claims for compensation.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
…...................CJI
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
…....................J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
NEW DELHI; ….....................J.
FEBRUARY 08, 2017. [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD]
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL(W)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. Nos. 42, 43, 50-51 & 52-53 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 328/2002
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
In The Matter of:
Kailash Awasya and others etc. etc. Applicant(s)
(for directions, permission to file addl. documents & exemption from filing
O.T. and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 7663/2016
(With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and Interim
Relief and Office Report)
Date : 08/02/2017 These applications/petition were called on for
hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Applicant(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv.
Mr. Clifton Doozario, Adv.
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv.
Ms. Nini Susan Thomas, Adv.
Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv.
Ms. Medha patkar, in person
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan,AOR
in WP 328/2002
For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG
in SLP 7663/2016 Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv.
& for respondent(s) Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.
in WP & IAs
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG
(Narmada Control Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG
Authority) Mr. Syed Naqvi, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
for MOEF Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG
Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv.
Ms. Manita Verma, Adv.
for Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR
For MOWR Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG
Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
for Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR
State of Gujarat Mr. Ashok Desai, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.
State of Mr. Arvind V. Savamt. Sr. Adv.
Maharashtra Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
State of Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shemshery, AAG
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.
for Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Interlocutory applications/petitions stand disposed of, in
terms of the Reportable signed order.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar)
Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS
[Reportable Signed Order is placed on the file]
For the Latest Updates
Join Now