Holding

The Supreme Court’s order fixing Rs 60 lakhs per family as a full and final settlement is a comprehensive, indivisible determination and cannot be clarified or modified to award a higher per‑hectare compensation.

Summary

The petitioners, project‑affected families under the Sardar Sarovar Project, sought clarification or modification of the Supreme Court's 8 February 2017 order that fixed a full‑and‑final compensation of Rs 60 lakhs per family as a comprehensive settlement. The petitioners argued that, since they were entitled to 4.293 hectares of agricultural land, they should receive compensation at Rs 30 lakhs per hectare, amounting to about Rs 1.28 crore. The Court examined whether the Article 142 order could be altered and held that the Rs 60 lakhs per family package was a complete, indivisible settlement and could not be broken down into a per‑hectare amount. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications for clarification/modification, directing the Grievance Redressal Authority to dispose of any pending representations within two months. The order reaffirmed that the Tribunal’s award is final and that the Supreme Court’s settlement under Article 142 is conclusive.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court's order dated 8 February 2017, passed under Article 142, is amenable to clarification or modification to grant per‑hectare compensation of Rs 30 lakhs for the applicant's 4.293 hectares.
Whether the comprehensive settlement of Rs 60 lakhs per family can be subdivided or increased based on the area of land allotted.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 2013

Subjects

Land acquisitionRehabilitationResettlementCompensationArticle 142Narmada projectClarification applicationModification of orderPer‑hectare compensationSupreme Court

Judgment

708 [2022]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 18 S.C.R. 708 [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2279 of 2019 and 610 of 2020
B in
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 328 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI
C AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Rehabilitation of displaced persons –
Compensation – In case of applicant an order was passed by the
Court of the Land Acquisition Officer, Sardar Sarovar Project
indicating that the land which was acquired was 4.293 hectares
D and determining the compensation payable at Rs 5,48,072/- and
the applicant would also be entitled to the allotment of 4.293 hectares
of agricultural land – Following the order of Supreme Court in
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.328 of
2002) on 08.02.2017, the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA)
intimated the applicant that in terms of the said order she was eligible
E to receive a final payment of Rs 60 lakhs after adjusting the payment
which was made to her earlier – The applicant submitted a
representation to the GRA claiming that since her entitlement was
for the allotment of 4.293 hectares of agricultural land, she would
be entitled to receive compensation of Rs 1,28,79,000/- equivalent
F to the area of the land – The GRA rejected the claim which led to
the institution of Writ Petition and the same was dismissed – Special
Leave Petition filed before Supreme Court was dismissed as
withdrawn – Thereafter, an Miscellaneous application for
clarification/modification of order dated 08.02.2017 – Held : 681
project affected families who were yet to receive compensation, were
G to be paid an amount at the rate of Rs 60 lakhs per family as a
matter of full and final settlement – In other words, the quantum of
Rs 60 lakhs per family represented a comprehensive settlement
package – The package was incapable of being broken down into
a per hectare determination – Once the Court had arrived at a final
H figure of Rs 60 lakhs per family recording that this would be in full
708
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF 709
INDIA & ORS.

and final settlement and directions were issued in the exercise of A
the jurisdiction under Article 142, it is impermissible for the applicant
to claim any amount in excess of that determination.
Disposing of the applications, the Court
HELD : 1. The crux of the issue which falls for decision is
whether the directions which are contained in the order of this B
Court dated 8 February 2017 are susceptible to either a
clarification or modification to the effect that the applicant should
be granted compensation at the rate of Rs 30 lakhs per hectare
for the entirety of the land holding of 4.293 hectares to which she
had been found to be entitled for the allotment of agricultural C
land. There is no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the
Award of the Tribunal dated 12 December 1979, the applicant
had opted for the allotment of agricultural land in lieu of the
acquisition of a portion of the land holding. The order of this
Court dated 8 February 2017 represented a comprehensive
determination of the compensation which would be payable to D
those families who were yet to receive compensation either in
full or in part. [Para 26][718-F-H]
2. Based on the rival submissions, the Court held that 681
project affected families who were yet to receive compensation
would be paid an amount at the rate of Rs 60 lakhs per family as E
a matter of full and final settlement. In other words, the quantum
of Rs 60 lakhs per family represented a comprehensive settlement
package. That package is incapable of being broken down into a
per hectare determination. Once the Court had arrived at a final
figure of Rs 60 lakhs per family recording that this would be in F
full and final settlement and directions were issued in the exercise
of the jurisdiction under Article 142, it is impermissible for the
applicant to claim any amount in excess of that determination.
[Para 27][719-B-D]
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 G
SCC 664 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94 referred to Para 10

H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 2279 of 2018 in Writ Petiton (Civil) No. 328 of 2022.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
With
B Miscellaneous Application No. 610 Of 2020 In Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 328 of 2022.
Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Abhimanue Shrestha, Satwik Parikh, Anshu
Saraswal, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Mayank
C Kshirsagar, Ms. Abha Goel, Manoj Tiwari, Balaji Srinivasan, Devashish
Bharuka, Rajat Nair, Ms. Kirti Khangarot, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
D 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/
E modification, it is necessary to extract the relief which is specifically
sought, at this stage:
“a) Clarify/Modify that the order dated 08.02.2017 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,
F 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.
G
4. On 12 December 1979, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal1
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
H
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF 711
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons) provides for the allotment of A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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
F
(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.
G
7. In September 1989, the State of Madhya Pradesh formulated a
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy2. Clause 3.2 of the R&R Policy
was in the following terms:
1
“Tribunal”
2
“R&R Policy” H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A “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
B 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
C 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 hectares.
9. On 30 March 2000, the Narmada Valley Development
Department issued an order, inter alia, for constituting a Grievance
D Redressal Authority3 for resolving the grievances of the project affected
families of the Sardar Sarovar Project resettled in Madhya Pradesh.
10. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India4, this Court
held that the Tribunal’s award would be final and binding.
11. An order was passed by the Court of the Land Acquisition
E
Officer, Sardar Sarovar Project in the case of the applicant indicating
that the land which was acquired was 4.293 hectares and determining
the compensation payable at Rs 5,48,072.
12. On 26 December 2005, the Resettlement Officer issued a
communication to the applicant again reiterating the rehabilitation package
F
which would be made available to the applicant in lieu of the acquisition
of 4.293 hectares of land which was acquired by the Narmada Valley
Development Authority. By another communication of the same date,
the applicant was informed that in compliance with the order dated 15
March 2005 passed by the Supreme Court, the applicant would be entitled
G to the allotment of 4.293 hectares of agricultural land. The Action Taken
Report of the Resettlement Officer of December 2005 indicates that:
(i) The total land holding of the applicant was 7.741 hectares;

3
“GRA”
4
H (2000) 10 SCC 664
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF 713
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(ii) The area of the affected land was 4.293 hectares; A
(iii) The affected land was 55% of the total holding;
(iv) The total compensation payable was Rs 5,48,072; and
(v) An area of 4.293 hectares of land was allotted to the
applicant in Village Talwada of Tehsil Dhaar. B
13. On 30 January 2006, the applicant submitted a representation
to the Settlement Officer stating that the land which was proposed to be
allotted to her was Charnoi land, which was not cultivable.
14. On 8 February 2017, a Bench of three-Judges of this Court
heard a batch of IAs arising in Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of C
India5. The Court noted that it was carrying out the exercise to arrive at
an equitable settlement for the rehabilitation of the project affected
families, consequent upon the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar
Project. The factual narration in the text of the order indicates the
following position: D
(i) Total number of project affected families to whom the
rehabilitation package was to be offered – 4998;
(ii) Out of (i) above, 4774 families had opted for the Special
Rehabilitation Package in terms of which they would accept
cash payment as compensation; E
(iii) Out of (ii) above, 4264 families had accepted both the
instalments as compensation and, hence, would not be
entitled to further compensation;
(iv) Out of those who had opted for the Special Rehabilitation
Package, 386 families were paid the first instalment, but F
not the second instalment;
(v) In addition to (iv) above, 120 families had not accepted any
compensation whatsoever;
(vi) In addition to (iv) and (v) above, 4 families had been engaged G
in litigation on the compensation payable;
(vii) A total of 510 project affected families [(iv)+(v)+(vi)] were
still entitled to compensation as they had not been paid full
compensation;
5
Writ Petition (Civil) No 328 of 2002 H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A (viii) 224 families had sought land in lieu of land and not cash
payment;
(ix) Out of (viii) above, 53 families had accepted the land without
any objection; and
(x) The remaining 171 families had not been compensated even
B though they were project affected families.
15. Based on the above factual position, the Court noted that a
total of 681 families (510 projected affected families who had originally
opted for the Special Rehabilitation Package and 171 families who had
claimed land in lieu of land) remained to be compensated. The Court
C noted that the figures in regard to the number of families who had been
compensated and who remained to be compensated were tentative in
nature. In its effort to arrive at a full and final resolution of the controversy,
the Court heard submissions on behalf of the counsel for the applicants
which are reflected in paragraph 6 of the order, which is reproduced
D below:
“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
E 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
F 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
G hectares of land to which they are entitled, and that, the matter be
concluded here and now itself.”
16. The directions which the Court issued after hearing the above
submissions are set out in paragraph 7, which is extracted below:
“7. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the suggestions
H made at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties, we
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF 715
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

are satisfied in directing the concerned authority, to pay A
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.”
B
17. Besides the above directions, the Court also noted that about
1,358 project affected families were found to have been duped, as
indicated in the report of a Commission of Enquiry described as the
Justice S S Jha Commission. The Court directed the authorities to pay
these 1,358 project affected families a sum of Rs 15 lakhs per family.
Eventually, all the connected petitions were disposed of in the above C
terms.
18. In paragraphs 12 to 16 of the order dated 8 February 2017,
the Court finally concluded the controversy in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The concluding
paragraphs of the order of this Court read as follows: D

“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 E
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 F
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 G
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.

H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
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.
C 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.”

D 19. Following the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017, the
GRA passed an order in March 2017 intimating the applicant that in
terms of the order of this Court she was eligible to receive a final payment
of Rs 60 lakhs after adjusting the payment which was made to her earlier.
20. The applicant submitted a representation on 11 May 2017 to
E the GRA. The applicant claimed that since her entitlement was for the
allotment of 4.293 hectares of agricultural land, she would be entitled to
receive compensation of Rs 1,28,79,000 equivalent to the area of the
land. In other words, the applicant submitted that the quantum of Rs 60
lakhs which was determined in the order of this Court dated 8 February
2017 was on the basis of the land holding of two hectares and would not
F represent the full entitlement of the applicant. The GRA rejected the
claim of the applicant on 22 May 2017, which led to the institution of
Writ Petition (Civil) No 16369 of 2017. The specific reliefs which were
sought in the writ petition included the following:
“(i) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or
G other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated
22.05.2017 passed by the Learned GRA, being contrary to the
NWDTA, R&R Policy, Action Plan and Judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
(ii) Direct the respondents to make payment of compensation at
H the rate of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) per hectare for
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF 717
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the 4.293 hact. of land acquired from the petitioner as per the A
Supreme Court’s order dated 08.02.2017.
(iii) Direct the respondents to pay an additional amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for its failure to
comply with the directions of the Apex Court dated 08.02.2017.”
21. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh B
dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 29 November 2017. Before
the High Court, the applicant sought to rely on the provisions contained
in the Award of 1979. The High Court rejected the writ petition, holding
that in view of the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017, the GRA
had correctly disallowed the claim and that the entitlement of the applicant C
was Rs 60 lakhs and no more.
22. The order of the High Court was sought to be questioned in a
Special Leave Petition6 before this Court. On 19 February 2018, the
Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the
following order: D
“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after some
arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition
and states that he will move the Court for review/clarification/
modification of order dated 8.2.2017 in WP(C) no. 328/
2002(Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors.). E
Permission is granted. The special leave petition is accordingly
dismissed as withdrawn.”
23. An application for clarification/modification of the order dated
8 February 2017 has been filed.
24. Mr Sanjay Parikh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the F
applicant, submitted that in terms of the Tribunal’s Award of 12 December
1979, the entitlement of the applicant was for the allotment of 4.293
hectares of land. Hence, it is urged that while the applicant had opted
for land in lieu of land in terms of the Tribunal’s Award, she had
represented that the land which was allotted was uncultivable. In this
backdrop, the submission of senior counsel is that the order of this Court G
dated 8 February 2017 which provided an equitable resolution of the
claims of the project affected families computed a payment of Rs 60
lakhs per family on the basis of an average rate of Rs 30 lakhs per

6
SLP(C) No 4485 of 2018 H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A hectare and with the holding of two hectares. Senior counsel submitted
that while the applicant has no dispute about the compensation which
has been fixed, a proper reading of the order of this Court would indicate
that the compensation to which persons such as the applicant are entitled
would have to be pegged at Rs 30 lakhs per hectare and since the applicant
was entitled to the allotment of 4.293 hectares, the actual compensation
B
would work out to approximately Rs 1.28 crores and not Rs 60 lakhs
which has been offered in pursuance of the order dated 8 February
2017.
25. Opposing these submissions, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional
Solicitor General, has urged that the order of this Court dated 8 February
C 2017 was passed in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of
the Constitution. Moreover, paragraph 7 of the order of this Court clearly
indicates that a total quantum of Rs 60 lakhs per family was determined
as being payable to 681 project affected families who were yet to receive
compensation as a matter of full and final settlement. The Additional
D Solicitor General submitted that what is recorded in paragraph 6 of the
order of this Court are the submissions during the course of the
deliberations that took place in court. Hence, it was urged that once the
final settlement package has been determined at Rs 60 lakhs per family
and an order has been passed in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article
142, a clarification/ modification of the order cannot be sought since, in
E substance, this would amount to a substantive review of the order of this
Court.
26. The crux of the issue which falls for decision is whether the
directions which are contained in the order of this Court dated 8 February
2017 are susceptible to either a clarification or modification to the effect
F that the applicant should be granted compensation at the rate of Rs 30
lakhs per hectare for the entirety of the land holding of 4.293 hectares to
which she had been found to be entitled for the allotment of agricultural
land. There is no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the Award
of the Tribunal dated 12 December 1979, the applicant had opted for the
allotment of agricultural land in lieu of the acquisition of a portion of the
G land holding. The order of this Court dated 8 February 2017 represented
a comprehensive determination of the compensation which would be
payable to those families who were yet to receive compensation either
in full or in part. The Court noted that 681 project affected families were
still to receive compensation either in full or in part. The Court specifically
H noted in paragraph 6 of the order extracted above that it was of the view
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF 719
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

that it would be more appropriate “to finally determine the compensation, A
here and now”. On the one hand, counsel for the applicants had indicated
that the land value would be in the range between Rs 15 lakhs and Rs 80
lakhs per hectare. On the other hand, the Attorney General for India
suggested that the value of the land should be pegged at Rs 45 lakhs in
lieu of two hectares of land.
B
27. Based on the rival submissions, the Court held that 681 project
affected families who were yet to receive compensation would be paid
an amount at the rate of Rs 60 lakhs per family as a matter of full and
final settlement. In other words, the quantum of Rs 60 lakhs per family
represented a comprehensive settlement package. That package is
incapable of being broken down into a per hectare determination. Once C
the Court had arrived at a final figure of Rs 60 lakhs per family recording
that this would be in full and final settlement and directions were issued
in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142, it is impermissible
for the applicant to claim any amount in excess of that determination.
There is no doubt about the legal position that the Award of the Tribunal D
is final and binding as submitted by the counsel on behalf of the applicant.
At the same time, it is necessary to note that though the Award of the
Tribunal had attained finality, it had given rise to litigation and diverse
applications were pending before this Court. Hence, when this Court
passed the order dated 8 February 2017 it was in order to resolve the
controversy once and for all. E
28. The Court also had before it 1358 project affected families
who had been duped and who had not actually received any compensation
at all. It is in this backdrop that the Court passed a consolidated order
covering all claims and directed that in view of its order, all pending
litigation, civil and criminal, arising out of the recommendations contained F
in the report of the Justice S S Jha Commission dated January 2016,
would come to an end. The Court observed that the order applied to the
resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected families in the State
of Madhya Pradesh, but the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra would
also conclude all the resettlement and rehabilitation activities within three
months from the date of the order. The settlement package of Rs 60 G
lakhs per family represents a final compensation package which was
directed to be paid in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 142. Paragraph 7 of the order of this Court does not admit of any
ambiguity. In any event, the order of this Court and the directions which
have been issued under Article 142 are not susceptible of being clarified H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R.

A or modified any further in a Miscellaneous Application of the nature that
has been placed before this Court. Insofar as the applicant is concerned,
she had challenged the order of GRA before the High Court. The High
Court rejected the writ petition on the basis of a correct interpretation of
the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017.
B 29. For the above reasons, we are of the view that there is no
merit in the Miscellaneous Application. The Miscellaneous Application
stands dismissed.
IA Nos 146014, 146015 of 2022 and 146002 and 146003 of
2022 and Miscellaneous Application No 610 of 2020 with
connected applications
C
30. Mr Mayank Kshirsagar, counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicants, states that the applicants have moved the Grievance Redressal
Authority constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh for seeking the
benefit of the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017. However,
according to the counsel, GRA has not taken any decision on the
D application.
31. If the GRA has yet not taken any decision, as stated before
this Court, on the representations/applications filed by the applicants, we
permit the applicants to move the GRA for expeditious disposal of the
representations/applications. The GRA shall, in that event, dispose of
E the representations/applications within a period of two months from the
date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event that the
applicants are aggrieved by the order of the GRA, it would be open to
them to challenge the correctness of the order by adopting appropriate
remedies before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
32. Hence, no further directions are required to be passed in the
F
present applications.
33. The applications are accordingly disposed of.
IA Nos 184229 of 2018, 184220 of 2018, 184221 of 2018,
184236 of 2018, 184237 of 2018, 184244 of 2018, 184246 of 2018,
184240 of 2018, 184241 of 2018 and 184242 of 2018
G
34. None appears on behalf of the applicants.
35. The applications are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Ankit Gyan and Anurag Bhaskar Applications disposed of.
(Assisted by : Priyanshu Agarwal, LCRA)
H