Supreme Court of India
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2005 INSC 142
- Decided
- 15 March 2005
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- Y K SABHARWAL
Holding
Both permanently and temporarily affected families, as well as major sons and heirs, are entitled to the full rehabilitation package, and relief must be implemented pari passu with any increase in dam height.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined applications by project‑affected families (PAFs) from Madhya Pradesh seeking rehabilitation benefits under the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) award after the Sardar Sarovar Dam was raised to 110 metres. The petitioners argued that both permanently and temporarily affected families, as well as major sons and heirs of deceased land‑holders, should receive land, house plots and other amenities, and that construction should not proceed until all such rehabilitation was completed. The Court held that the award and its earlier judgment do not distinguish between permanent and temporary submergence, and that the term "family" includes major sons, making them entitled to separate land allocations. It affirmed that relief and rehabilitation must proceed pari passu with any further raising of the dam, and that land offered must be irrigable and cultivable, though not of the PAFs' unrestricted choice. Consequently, the Court directed the states to implement the rehabilitation package for all eligible PAFs and to allot the specified lands within a stipulated period, disposing of the applications with directions and no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the NWDT award and Supreme Court directions distinguish between permanently and temporarily affected project‑affected families for rehabilitation benefits.
- Whether major sons of land‑holders constitute separate families entitled to land allotment under the award.
- Whether heirs of land‑holders who died before the notification are eligible for the rehabilitation package.
- Whether PAFs have a right to choose the specific land allotted to them.
- Whether further raising of the dam can proceed without pari passu implementation of relief and rehabilitation measures.
Legislation cited
- Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956s. 4, s. 5(2), s. 5(4)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Subjects
ResettlementRehabilitationNarmada DamProject Affected FamiliesPari PassuMajor SonsLand AcquisitionInter-State Water DisputesTemporary vs Permanent Submergence
Judgment
A NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MARCH 15, 2005
B [Y.K. SABHARWAL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
Resettlement and Rehabilitation :
Hydero-electric Project-Sardar Sarovar Dam-Resettlement and
C Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families-'-Permanently and temporarily
affected families-Interim applications by PAFs in the State of MP. for
implementation of order of Supreme Court* and Narmada Water Disputes
Tribunal Award-Benefits claimed to be extended to all major sons-Also to
temporarily affected families and to heirs of land holders died prior to
D Notification-Held, the applicants became affected with the raising ofthe dam
at 90 metres and remained affected by further raising thereof upto 100 metres
and, thus, in terms of the directions contained in the award as also the judgment
of this Court, the applicants, irrespective of the fact as to whether they are
permanently affected or temporarily affected, were entitled to the benefit of
the rehabilitation package-All the applicants who were both permanently
E and temporarily affected by submergence by reason of raising of the height
of the dam to the present height would be entitled to the benefit of the
rehabilitation package.
The expression "pari passu'', has a direct nexus with raising of the
height vis-a-vis implementation of relief and rehabilitation progress both of
F which must proceed 'equably or ratably' which would mean that relief and
rehabilitation measures must be undertaken as and when the height of the
dam is further raised-The said expression should be construed in a meaningful
manner-The definition of family' in the scheme undisputably includes major
sons-A plain reading of the said definition clearly shows that even where a
G major son of the land-holder did not possess land separately, he would be
entitled to grant of a separate holding-As a major son constitutes 'separate
family' within the interpretation clause of family', no meaning thereto can be
given.
Grievance Redressal Authority has rightly held that the applicants would
II 840
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. 841
not be entitled to allotment of land of their choice but the land offered to them A
should be irrigable and cultivable in terms of the judgment of this Court as
well as the Award of the Tribunal-The State has constituted a land bank-
Normally, those lands which are available from the land bank should be
allotted and in relation thereto, the parties may have a choice-But they
cannot reject such land unless it is shown that the lands are not irrigable or
cultivable or otherwise unsuitable-This Court in the main judgment did not B
say that the oustees are to be relocated as a community-The question of
rehabilitation inevitably would arise as and when they become entitled theret<>-
This Court cannot entertain applications raising grievance involving factual
issues raised by the parties-The GRA being headed by a former Chief Justice
of the High Court would indisputably be entitled to adjudicate upon such C
disputes-It is also expected that the parties should ordinarily abide by such
decision-Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal Act, 1956-ss. 5(2) and 5(4).
Words and Phrases :
'Pari passu '-Meaning of D
'Family '-Connotation of
*Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union ofIndia and Ors., [2000) l 0 SCC
664 = [2000) Supp. 4 SCR 94, relied on.
Goodfrey Phillips India Ltd and Anr. v State of U.P. and Ors., (2005)
E
AIR SCW 613, referred to.
.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn. ; G.P. Singh 's "Principles a/Statutory
Interpretation", referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 10 in I.A. No. 4 and F
I.A. No. 11 in I.A. No. 7 in W.P.C. No. 328 of of 2002.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Prashant Bhushan for the Petitoner
G
Ashok H. Desai,. T.S. Doabia, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mukul Rohtagi, Naresh o
Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta A.A.G. for Rajasthan, Naveen Kumar Singh, Ms.
Shivangi, Ms.Hemantika Wahi, Ms.Sadhana Sandhu, Ms. Varuna Bhandari
Gugnani, syed Naqvi, D.S. Mahra, P. Parmeswaran, S. Muralidhar, Somiran
Sharma, Amit Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, Ms.Anil Katiyar, shreekant N. Terdal, H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A Satish K. Agnihotri, Rohit K. Singh, Amit Mishra, Sanjay Parikh, Ms.Anitha
Shenoy, A.N. Singh, R.B. Masodkar, S.S. Shinde and Mukesh K. Giri for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B S.B. SINHA, J. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) is one of the most ambitious multipurpose
projects which on completion is expected to produce 1450 MW of power and
supply water for irrigation and drinking purposes to areas not only in the
riparian States including Kutch in the State of Gujarat but even in areas
C belonging to non-riparian State like Rajasthan.
The multiple project by way of construction of a dam over the River
Narmada began its journey in 1961. A large number of residents of the
States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat are affected by the said
construction.
D
The Government of India in exercise of its power conferred upon it
under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, constituted a
Tribunal and made the following reference to it :
"In exercise of the pC)_wers conferred by sub-section (I) of Section 5
E of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 1956), the Central
Government hereby refers to the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal
for adjudication of the water dispute regarding the inter-State River
Narmada, and the river-valley thereof, emerging from Letter No. MIP-
5565/C-10527-K dated 6.7.1968, from the Government of Gujarat".
F Another reference by the Government of India was made on 16.10.1969 .
.f'#.
The State of Gujarat b~ore the Tribunal admittedly made an offer that
the oustees can be resettled and rehabilitated in the State of Gujarat wherefor
a rehabilitation package would be granted if they opt therefor and in the
G event the outstees opt to stay back in their home state, the entire expenses for
the purpose of rehabilitation shall be borne by the State of Gujarat.
An award was made by the said Tribunal in terms of Section 5(2) read
with Section 5(4) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 on 16.8.1978.
Several references thereafter were filed by the concerned States. As regard
H relief and rehabilitation, the award inter alia contained mandatory provisions
J\iARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.) 843
containing Clause XI sub-clause (IV)(6)(ii) stating that no submergence of A
any area would take place unless the oustees are rehabilitated. In terms of
its award, the Tribunal directed constitution of an Inter-State Administrative
Authority known as 'Narmada Control Authority' (NCA) for the purpose of
securing compliance with and implementation of the decision and directions
of the Tribunal. The NCA in its turn constituted one or more sub-committees
including one relating to resettlement and rehabilitation. B
WRIT PETITION:
The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a Non-Governmental
Organization which has been in the forefront of the agitation against the
construction of the Sardar Saro var Dam filed a writ petition before this Court C
raising several issues including relief and rehabilitation.
Before this Court a grievance was raised as regard the attitude on the
part of the State of Madhya Pradesh as it made an attempt to wriggle out of
its responsibilities to provide rehabilitation facilities to the oustees by offering D
.them cash compensation. A contention was further raised that since offers
to oustees affected at the 90 metres of the height of the dam to be settled
in the State of Madhya Pradesh had not been made, further construction
should not be p~rmitted till one year after the resettlement of these project-
affected families (PAFs) at 90 metres.
E
DECISION OF THIS COURT:
A three-Judge Bench of this court by a judgment and order dated
18.10.2000 in Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India and Ors., [20001
l 0 sec 664 disposed of the said writ petition upon issuing various directions.
The court inter a/ia opined that: F
(i) displacement of the tribals and other persons would not per se
result in violation of their fundamental or other rights;
(ii) on their rehabilitation at new locations they would be better off
than what they were; G
(iii) at the rehabilitation sites they will have more and better amenities
than those they enjoyed in their tribal hamlets; and
(iv) the gradual assimilation in the mainstream of the society would
lead to betterment and progress.
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.
A This Court in its judgment noticed that the award provided that every
displaced family whose more than 25% of agricultural landholding is acquired,
would be entitled to be allotted irrigable land of its choice to the extent of
land acquired subject to the prescribed ceiling of the State concerned with a
minimum of two hectares land. Furthermore, the PAFs will be allotted a
house/plot free of cost. The court noticed that the State Governments have
B liberalized the policy with regard to resettlement and have offered packages
more than what was provided for in the award of the Tribunal. Such liberalized
policy included those PAFs who were even encroachers, landless/displaced
persons, joint-holders, tapu-land (island) holders and major sons (18 years
old). The court noticed various measures taken by the States of Madhya
C Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat for sustainable development as regard
preserving the socio-cultural environment of the displaced persons in these
States. This Court noticed that although in terms of the award those sons of
the oustees who had become major one year prior to the issuance of the
notification for land acquisition were entitled to be allotted land; the State of
Gujarat made a relaxation thereto so as cover all those who became major up
D to 1.1.1987. Before us it is contended that the State of Madhya Pradesh also
extended the cut off date to the date of issuance of notification. The Court
noticed that R&R Group and the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) having
been established, a system had come into force for ensuring satisfactory
resettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees. The Court furthermore noticed
E that at the instance of GRA, PAFs were being issued sanads for the lands
allotted to them which will ensure provisions of a proper legal document in
their favour. The Court also noticed that the sites had been identified by the
State of Madhya Pradesh with a view to arrange resettlement of PAFs and out
of 92 sites for resettlement of PAFs which were required to be established
and out of these; 18 were stated to be fully developed, development in 23
F sites was in progress; 18 sites were such where location and identification of
land although was complete but development work had not started and 33
sites were such where location of land for the development was to be decided
by the task force constituted for the said purpose. Noticing the .variance
between the rehabilitation package offered by the State of Madhya Pradesh
G and Gujarat this Court opined :
" ...The impression which one gets after reading the affidavit on behalf
of the State of Madhya Pradesh clearly is that the main effort of the
said State is to try and convince PAFs that they should go to Gujarat
whose rehabilitation package and effort is far superior to that of the
H State of Madhya Pradesh. It is, therefore, not surprising that a vast
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 845
majority of PAFs of Madhya Pradesh have opted to be resettled iµ A
Gujarat but that does not by itself absolve the State of Madhya Pradesh
of its responsibility to take prompt steps so as to comply at least with
the provisions of the Tribunal's award relating to relief and
rehabilitation. The State of Madhya Pradesh has been contending that
the height of the dam should be lowered to 436 ft. so that lesser,
number of people are dislocated but we find that even with regard to. B
the rehabilitation of the oustees at 436 ft. the R&R programme of the
State is nowhere implemented. The State is under an obligation to
effectively resettle those oustees whose choice is not to go to Gujarat.
Appropriate directions may, therefore, have to be given to ensure that
the speed in implementing R&R picks up. Even the interim report of C
Mr. Justice Soni, GRA for the State of Madhya Pradesh, indicates
lack of commitment on the State's part in looking to the welfare of
its own people who are going to be under the threat of ouster and
who have to be rehabilitated. Perhaps the lack of urgency could be
because of lack of resources, but th~n the rehabilitation even in Madhya
Pradesh is to be at the expense of Gujarat. A more likely reason could P
be that, apart from electricity, the main benefit of the construction of
the dam is to be of Gujarat and to a lesser extent to Maharashtra and
Rajasthan. In a federal set-up like India, whenever any such inter-
state project is approved and work undertaken the States involved
have a responsibility to cooperate with each other. There is a method E
of settling the differences which may arise amongst there like, for
example, in the case of inter-State water dispute the reference of the
same to a Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal being binding, the
States concerned are duty-bound to comply with the terms t~ereof.
The Court issued inter a/ia, the following directions : p,
"(2) As the Relief and Rehabilitation Subgroup has cleared the
construction up to 90 metres, the same can be undertaken immediately.
Further raising of the height will be only pari passu with the
implementation of the relief and rehabilitation measures and on the
clearance by the Relief and Rehabilitation Subgroup. The Relief and G
Rehabilitation Subgroup will give clearance for further construction
after consulting the three Grievance Redressal Authorities.
(5) The reports of the Grievance Redressal Authorities, and of
Madhya Pradesh in particular, show that there is a considerable
slackness in the work of identification of land, acquisition of suitable H
•
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A land and the consequent steps necessary to be taken to rehabilitate the
project oustees. We direct the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra
and Gujarat to implement the award and give relief and rehabilitation
to the oustees in terms of the packages offered by them and these
States shall comply with any direction in this regard which is given
either by NCA or the Review Committee or the Grievance Redressal
B Authorities.
(7) NCA will within four weeks from today draw up an action
plan in relation to further construction and the relief and rehabilitation
work to be undertaken. Such an action plan will fix a time-frame so
as to ensure relief and rehabilitation pari passu with the increase in
c the height of the dam. Each State shall abide by the terms of the
action plan so prepared by NCA and in the event of any dispute or
difficulty arising, representation may be made to the Review
Committee. However, each State shall be bound to comply with the
directions of NCA with regard to the acquisition of land for the
D purpose of relief and rehabilitation to the extent and within the period
specified by NCA."
THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS :
As the directions of this Court were not implemented in letter and
E spirit, applications were filed by the petitioners h~rein for directing the
Respondents to rehabilitate each of them in accordance with the NWDTA
and the orders of this Court, as also for a direction that the orders passed by
the GRA be set aside and not acted upon.
The petitioners in I.A. No. 4 of2004 who are,23 in number, are residents
F of village Picchodi and the petitioners in I.A. No. 11 of 2004 who are 14 in
number, are residents of village Jalsindhi. In these applications, the petitioners
had prayed for a direction upon the Respondents .not to proceed with further
construction by raising the height of the dam till all affected people at the
height of 110 meters are rehabilitated in all respects.
0 As GRA had been constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh, this
G Court without going into the merit of the matter by orders dated 16.4.2004
and 23. 7 .2004, directed the parties to agitate their grievances at the first
instance before it.
CONTENTIONS:
H The contention of the Applicants herein is that having regard to the fact
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 847
that they are Project Affected Families (PAFs) and, thus, being oustees within A
the meaning of the award made by Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal (NWDT),
each one of them was entitled to the benefits of the rehabilitation package
envisaged therein. Such entitlement, according to the applicants, must be
extended to:
(i) all major sons of the land-holders; B
(ii) those who had also been temporary affected; and
(iii) the heirs of land holders who died prior to the date of notification ..
It was further contended 'that in the event, those who had been
temporarily affected as also the major sons of the original land holders are C
held entitled to the benefits of the rehabilitation package, the State of Madhya
Pradesh be directed to allot suitable cultivable lands in their favour as the
lands situated at Khajuri and measuring 13.40 hectares only would not be
sufficient for that purpose.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE GRA: D
The State contended that every oustee is offered land out of the land
bank developed by it as per norms set out in NWDT Award and in the event
any oustee does not intend to avail the same and finds the Special
Rehabilitation Package (SRP) more attractive, he may do so. It was urged
that the Government has adopted an uniform policy for all the oustees and, E
thus: the claim for individual preferences cannot be acceded to. It was argued
that it was not possible to allot or procure land for allotment as per choice
of the applicants as the same is not required to be done under NWDT Award.
It was submitted that it is not possible for the State to procure the land
suggested by the oustees and as such either they should accept the land F
allotted to them or avail the benefit of SRP.
Before the GRA, an owner of fand in question, viz., Shri Mahesh Tiwari
appeared and stated that he and his brothers were ready and willing to sell
their landholdings admeasuring 116 acres situated at village Devla, at a market
value which may be determined by the Narmada Valley Development G
Authority (NVDA) according to the proced4re laid down in the Land
Acquisition Act.
Before the GRA, the parties appeared. A piece of land measuring
about 13.40 hectares situated at village Khajuri was proposed to be allotted
H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A by the State. The Petitioners of I.A. No. 11 in I.A. No. 7 consented thereto.
The GRA, however, by reason of an order dated 11th September, 2004
having regard to the availability of farm land at K.hajuri which was offered
by NVDA for rehabilitation of eligible oustees directed the State, having
regard to the settlement arrived at by and between the parties to proceed to
B rehabilitate the applicants at the appropriate stage in the light of the judgment
dated 18. l 0.2000 passed by this Court by allotting agricultural lands to the
eligible applicants from out of the farm land at Khajuri, according to their
entitlement along with house sites at R&R side nearby and providing the civil
amenities as mandated by the Award and other reliefs due to them according
C to the provisions of the Award and the R.R. Policy of the State. The State
of Madhya Pradesh, however, allotted only 5 land pattas and 7 house plots
out of 23 applicants of village Picchodi and 5 land pattas and 14 house plots
pattas to the 14 oustees of village Jalsindhi.
The Applicants of both the interlocutory applications are, thus, before
D us.
ADMITTED FACT:
It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that applicants herein are PAFs
within the meaning of the Award of the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute
E that acquisition of the land took place, so far as village Jalsindhi is con,cemed,
in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1291
whereas in respect of village Picchodi, it took place in 2000. It is furthermore
not in dispute that the applicants belonging to both villages Picchodi and
Jalsindhi come within the purview of the PAFs, at the height of 9 5 meters to
100 meters of construction of the dam. It also stands admitted that present
F height of the dam is 110 meters.
Indisputably, the State although intended to make a distinction between
the temporary and permanent oustees but in its affidavit dated 6.5.1999 filed
before this Court no such distinction was made and in fact it was emphasized
G that even temporary submergence even for a short period can affect the
oustees badly and, thus, no distinction should be made between temporary
and permanent PAFs.
Clause XI of the Award indisputably pertains to the directions regarding
submergence, land acquisition and resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced
H persons which would include both permanently and temporarily affected
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 849
'persons.· A
RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE AWARD:
Clauses II(l ), II(2), IV (2)(i), (IV)(2)(ii), IV(2)(iv), IV(6)(ii), IV(7) and
V(3)(iii) of Clause XI of the Award read as under:
B
-
.........
"11(1). Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall acquire for Sardar
Sarovar Project under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, all lands of private ownership situated lJelow the FRL + 138.68
m (455') of Sardar Sarovar and all interests therein not belonging to
the respective States. If on the basis aforesaid, 75 per cent or inore
land of a contiguous holding of any person is required to be C
compulsorily acquired, such person shall have the option to cotnpel
compulsorily acquisition of the entire contiguous holding.
11(2). Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall also acquire for Sardar ·
Sarovar Project under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, all buildings with their appurtenant land situated between D
FRL+l38.68 m (455') and MWL + 141.21 m (460') as also those
affected by the back-water effect resulting from MWL+l41.21 m
(460').
IV (2)(i). According to the present estimates the number of oustee
families below RL 106.68 metres (RL 350') would be 30 spread over E
20 villages in Madhya Pradesh and 250 families spread over 20 villages
in Maharashtra. Within six months of the publication of the decision
- of the Tribunal in the Official Gazette, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra shall determine by mutual consultation the location. of
one or two rehabilitation villages in Gujarat to rehabilitate oustees F
from areas below RL 106.68 metres (RL+350'). Gujarat shall acquire
necessary lands for the rehabilitation villages and make available the
same within two years of the decision of the Tribunal. Within six
months of the decision of the location of the rehabilitation villages in
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall intimate to Gujarat
the number of oustee families from areas below RL I 06.68 metres G
(RL 350') willing to migrate to Gujarat. For the remaining oustee
families, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall arrange to acqui~e
lands for rehabilitation within the respective States.
(IV)(2)(ii). Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall set up adequate
establishments for land acquisition and rehabilitation of oustee families. H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A Gujarat shall deposit within three months of the decision of the
.....
Tribunal Rupees ten lakhs each with Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra
in advance towards cost of establishment and rehabilitation in these
States to be adjusted after actual costs are determined. Madhya Pradesh
and Maharashtra shall start land acquisition proceedings for areas
below RL 106.68 metres (RL+350') within six months of the decision
B of the Tribunal and convey the lands to Gujarat for project purposes
within three years of the decision of the Tribunal. Within 18 months
of the decision of the Tribunal, Gujarat shall make an advance payment
of Rs. 70 lakhs to Madhya Pradesh and Rs. 100 lakhs to Maharashtra
towards the compensation of land, to be adjusted after actual costs
C are determined.
IV(2)(iv). Gujarat shall acquire and make available a year in advance
of the submergence before each successive stage, irrigable lands and
house sit~s for rehabilitation of the oustee families from Madhya
Pradesh and Maharashtra who are willing to migrate to Gujarat. Gujarat
D shall in the first instance offer to rehabilitate the oustees in its own
territory.
IV(6)(ii). In no event shall any areas in Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra be submerged under the Sardar Sarovar unless all payment
of compensation, expenses and costs as aforesaid is made for
E acquisition of land and properties and arrangements are made for the
rehabilitation of the oustees the reform in accordance with these
directions and intimated to the oustees.
IV(7). Allotment of Agricultural Lands - Every displaced family from
whom more than 25 per cent of its land holding is acquired shall be
....
I
F 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 ifit agrees
to take it. The price charged for it would be as mutually agreed
G 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.
H Where land is allotted in Madhya Pradesh or Maharashtra, Gujarat
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.O.I. [SINHA, J.] 85 l
having paid for it vide Clause IV (6)(i) supra, all recoveries for the A
allotted land shall be credited to Gujarat.
V(3)(iii). Gujarat shall at each successive stage of submergence
intimate to Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra the area coming under
submergence at least 18 months in advance. The inhabitants of the
area coming under the respective stages of submergence will be entitled B
to occupy or use their properties without being required to pay anything
for such occupation and use till a date to be notified by the State
concerned which date shall not be less than six months before
submergence. They must vacate the area by the notified date."
- The provisions of the Award are required to be read along with the C
definitions of "oustee" and "family" contained in sub-clauses 1(1) and 1(3)
thereof which read as under:
"Oustee" An 'oustee' shall mean any person who since at least one
year prior to the date of publication of the notification under Section .
4 of the Act, has been ordinarily residing or cultivating land or carrying D
on any trade, occupation, or calling or working for gain in the area
likely to be submerged permanently or temporarily.
"Family" (i) A family shall include husband, wife and minor children
and other persons dependent on the head of the family, e.g., widowed
mother, (ii) Every major son will be treated as a separate family." E
SUBMISSIONS:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted
that for the purpose of grant of benefit of rehabilitation package, no distinction
can be made between temporary and permanent affected people and in this F
connection our attention has been drawn to the stand taken by the Respondent
- State in the earlier proceedings as also the award. It was submitted that the
major sons of the PAFs being included in the definition of "family" and
treated to be a separate family, they are entitled to allotment of a separate
unit in terms of the award as also the judgment of this Court. The learned G
counsel would further contend that those applicants who were adults on the
cut-off date and whose fathers have passed away are also entitled to the
benefit of the rehabilitation package. It was contended that the applicants
must be given a choice as regard the site of the irrigable and cultivable lands.
The submission of Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, is that the Award
contemplates grant of benefits of rehabilitatiqn package only to such persons
who were affected by reason of raising of height of the dam and, thus, all the
PAFs are not entitled to grant of land for land. Further contention of Mr.
Vaidyanatnan is that the entire family has to be treated as a unit and the adult
sons of a landholder are not entitled to a separate unit unless they were
B themselves land-holders. This question, according to Mr. Vaidyanathan, had
not so far been specifically considered by this Court.
According to·the learned counsel, Sub-clause IV (7) of Clause XI of the
Award clearly specifies the persons who would be entitled to grant of
alternative land. The Award, Mr. Vaidyanathan would argue, makes a
C distinction between permanently affected persons and temporarily affected
persons.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
(i) Whether there exists a distinction between temporarily and
permanently affected persons in the NWDT Award as well as the
D judgment of this Court? ·
(ii) Whether adult sons are entitled to a minimum of 2 hectare of land
as per NWDT Award and judgment of this Court?
(iii) Whether those adult sons who became landholders since their:
fathers passed away, are entitled to the benefit of alternate lands,
E in place of the acquired lands standing in the names of their
deceased fathers?
DETERMINATION:
Permanent and Temporary Affected Families
F Sub-clause IV (6)(ii) of Clause XI makes it imperative that submergence
would not be allowed to take place until' complete settlement and rehabilitation
of oustees is done which in view of the definition of 'oustees' would mean
both permanently and temporarily affected persons.
It has been the consistent stand on the State of Madhya Pradesh that
G temporary affected persons would come within the purview of the expression
PF As and there exists no distinction between permanent affected and temporary
affected persons.
We may, at this juncture, notice the pattern of rehabilitation of affected
families in Sardar ·Sarovar Project from the following chart relied on by the
H Applicants:
J - \-
"Rehabilitation of Sardar Sarovar Project Affected Families
A Game of Numbers: MP's Diminishing PAF List
z
Status of R&R at Dam Height EL 95 Mts of MP PAFs :>
~
:>
Date Total Claimed as Resettled Balance Option of Source of 0
:>
no. of Balance information
PAFs In MP In Guj. Total MP Gujarat °'f;
::i::
Aug 29, 2001 5397 1182 2385 3567 1830 1378 452 Agenda of 50th :>
0
Meeting of R&R
~
Sub-Group 0
0
t'"'
Nov 11, 2001 5379 1394 2381 3775 1603 782 821 RCNCA (CMs) ~
meeting :<::
c::
Dec 08, 2001 5397 1399 2418 3817 1580 1217 363 Agenda of 51 st 0
i-
meeting of R&R u:;
Sub-Group
~
Jan 07, 2002 5397 1466 2691 4157 1240 1150 90 Minutes of 51 st
meeting of R&R -
.?>
..:....
Sub-Group
Feb 08, 20~ 5397 1466 2691 4157 1240 1150 90 Ag~nda of 52nd 00
Vo
w
00
Vo
meeting of R&R .j:>.
Sub-"Group
May 14, 2002 1883 1873 10 Minutes of 53rd
Meeting of R&R
Sub-Group
June 31, 2002 1883* 967 916 1883 0 0 0 Quarterly Status (/J
Report, NCA c:
"'O
~
Dec 31, 2002 1883* 967 916 1883 0 0 0 Half Yearly Status 3\:::
rn
Report, NCA (")
0
c:
~
:;;;
rn
* The GoMP has resettled only those PAFs (i) whose agricultural land is coming under permanent submergence "'O
0
and (ii) whose habitation is coming under permanent or temporary submergence due to a l in 100 year flood. (end ~
(/J
notes are taken directly from NCA documents).
'N
0
0
~
N
(/J
n
~
·~
I. ~ ... ~I ~. ~ .....,,... ..) - - -- .I .. f .• .L - t ~
!.:..
f
Status of R&R at Dam Height EL 95 Mts of MP PAFs
Date Total Claimed as Resettled Balance Option of Source of
no. of Balance infonnation z
>
PAFs In MP In GuJ. Total MP Gujarat ~
>
0
Aug 29, 200I 7913 I327 2584 3911 4002 2554 I448 Agenda of 50th >
to
Meeting of R&R
n>
Sub-Group :i::
0
>
Nov I l, 2001 7913 1587 2684 4271 3570 1902 1668 RCNCA (CMs) ~
0
meeting 0
Jan 07, 2002 7913 1670 3360 5030 2883 2693 190 Minutes of 51 st ~
:<:
meeting of R&R c:
Sub-Group 9
en
Feb 08, 2002 7913 1670 3360 5030 2883 2693 190 Agenda of 52nd z
meeting of R&R
Sub-Group
~'-
..:.....,
June 31, 2002 3071* 1990 1036 3026 45 45 0 Quarterly Status
Report, NCA
00
Vo
Vo
00
Vl
°'
Nov 14, 2002 3710* 2443 ll98 3641 69 69 0 Minutes of 54th
Meeting of R&R
Sub-Group
Dec 31, 2002 3710* 2443 1243 3686 24 24 0 Half Yearly Status
Report, NCA
Ul
c:
May 13, 2003 3692* 2434 1258 3692 0 0 0 Minutes of 55th -0
Meeting of R&R ~
$'.
Sub-Group t'T1
(")
0
June 31, 2003 3692* 2434 1256 3692 0 0 0 , Half Yearly Status c:
;;i::i
-l
Report, NCA ;;i::i
t'T1
*PAFs whose lands are temporarily under submergence due to l in 100 flood have not been considered for R&R 6
;;i::i
(;l
'N
0
0
V•
'"
r.r.
(;
;;;::
- .... --r 1T
..,,-, t- ~· -' 'r - •
f ~ f
Status of R&R at Dam Height EL 95 Mts of MP PAFs
~
Date Total Claimed as Resettled Balance Option of Source of ~
no. of Balance information ~
tl:l
PAFs In MP In Guj. Total MP Gujarat >
(')
Aug 29, 2001 12681 1809 2802 4611 8070 5489 2581 Agenda of 50th S2
0
Meeting of R&R ~
Sub-Group 0
0
t""'
Nov 11, 2001 12681 2005 2896 4901 7708 5288 2420 420 RCNCA ~
:<!
(CMs) meeting c::
9
Feb 08, 2002 12681 2079 3653 5732 6949 5219 1730 Agenda of 52nd -
en
meeting of R&R
Sub-Group
z
.S2
Nov 14, 2002 12681* 2175 3628 5803 6878 5425 1453 Minutes of 54th .::::
Meeting of R&R
Sub-Group
00
Vl
-.....)
00
VI
00
May 13, 2003 5607** Minutes of 55th
Meeting of R&R
Sub-Group
June 31, 2003 8406*** 5893 2016 7909 497 291 206 Half Yearly Status
Report, NCA
(/l
*This number may change after declaration of LAQ awards. PAFs whose lands are temporarily submerged due c:
to I in 100 year flood have not been considered for R&R **tentative "';:o
t'T1
$'.
***This number may change due to addition of genuine PAFs likely to be included after declaration by GRA t'T1
(")
and passing of land acquisition award." 0
c:
q
The contents of the aforementioned chart, are not denied or disputed. They are said to be supported by ~
t'T1
documents.
"'q
0
It is also relevant to notice the gazettee dated 31st December, 200 I issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh (/l
which is as under:
"No. 4-73-27.2.2001-1414 - It is informed that because of water level in SSP for the monsoon of2002 the villages
shown in list I will be affected and the oustees shown in list 2 will be affected with respect to their lands, houses 'N
0
0
and other property. These oustees will be able to make use of submergence affected property till the 3 lst of ~
December 200 I. After that they will have to relinquish this property; a!l families included in earlier notifications N
(/l
are also included in this notification. ()
?;i
~
1,
'·- l
'
S.No. Name of No. of Total effect due to Effect of submergence in Details
village PAFs submergence of Sardar monsoon of 2002 z
including Sarovar Project >
adult sons No. of Agricultural No. of Agricultural
~
houses land (in ha) houses land (in ha) ~
l Pichhodi 428 104 123.497 104 123.497 °'>
(1
The names of all the 23 applicants of village Pichhodi find place in the gazette published by the State, the
~
0
~
details whereof are as under:
0
S.No. Name of Land Total effect due to Effect of submergence in Details ~;:
PAPs and Holder/ submergence of Sardar monsoon of 2002 c:
father's Adult son Sarovar Project ~
name No. of Agricultural No. of Agricultural Vl
houses land (in ha) houses land (in ha) z
~
12. Mangilal s/o Adult son - - - - - 2:
Madia
34. Ramesh s/o LH l 3.569 l 3.569 -
00
Kalu Vi
\0
00
36. Badrilal s/o LH - - - Co-sharer of 34 0\
0
Kl ya
37. Jagan s/o LH - - - co.:sharer of 34
Kalya
38. Sagar w/o LH - - Co-sharer of 34
Kalya
39. Vediya s/o LH l - l - Co-sharer of 34 r/J
c::
Dariyav "'O
54. Shankar LH l l.154 l l.154 - ~
3::
Rukhadiya tTl
(j
55. Sonibai -LH - - - Co-sharer of 54 0
c::
Rukhadiya ~
56. Shambu LH - 0.664 - 0.664 -
"°
tTl
Moti a 6
216 Pratap LH - 1.056 - l.056 - ~
r/J
Tersingh
278. Pokhar LH 1 3.152 1 3.152 -
Girwar
279. Punya LH 1 - - - - t:3
0
0
Girwar ~
N
281. Buda Banga LH l 0.615 l 0.615 - r/J
h
~
j
ll
r f
282. Babu J:Sanga LH I - I - co-sharer ot 28 l
~>
1283. Dhanibai LH - - - Co-sharer of 281
~
c:i
Banga >
(")
::c:
284. Ratansingh LH 1 4.078 1 4.078 - >
0
Ranchod
285. Radheshyam Adult son - - - - - ~
0
Ratan r
286. Sitaram Adult son - - - - - ~
;<!
Ratan c
287. Govind LH 1 1.13 1 1.13 - $
Ramsingh Ci3
288. Sitaram Adult son - - - - - z
Govind
_$:
- -
.::
364. Lanka Pokhar LH - 0.243 0.243
00
°'
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A The names of all the applicants of village Picchodi, thus, except Rajaram
Pratap, who is an adult son of Pratap Tersingh are contained in the gazette.
Similar is the position of the applicants of village Jalsindhi whose names also
appear in the gazette issued by the State of M.P. wherein it was categorically
B stated that they would be affected by submergence in the monsoon of 2002
when the dam. height was raised to 95 m. Their names also appear in the
Action Taken Report of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the NVDA as was
submitted to the Nannada Control Authority with a view to obtaining
--
pennission for raising the height of the dam from 90 m to 95 m and then
C from 95 m to !00 m. In fact, the State had claimed that most of the applicants
had already been rehabilitated.
It is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan that the
residents Of Pishhodi village had not been affected at the dam height of
D 110.64 meters or the house of Pratap Tersingh is not affected. We have
noticed hereinbefore that the lands of Pichhodi village stood affected at 95-
100 m. No material has been placed before us that the oustees of the said
village were not affected due to permanent or temporary submergence at the
E dam height of 110.64 m. No such contention has been raised even before the
GRA. Furthemore, it has not been explained that as to how 5 of them were
given the benefit of land for land and house plots.
R&R Status of the PAFs at Sardar Sarovar Dam Height EL 95 m
F as on 31.12.2001 is as under:
--
l
z
State No. of
villages
affected
Total
PAFs
PAFs
resettled/
allotted
Balance
PAFs to
be
!
>
°'
>
n
agricultural resettled :I:
land/ paid >
0
~0
cash
compensation
In Guj. In
Mah.
In M.P. Total In Guj. In
Home
Total
~
~
State c::
M.P. 70 5397 2691* 0 1466 4157 90** 1150 1240 0
~
* includes Ex-parte allotment to 253 MP PAFs at EL 95.0m." en
z
~
.::::
00
0\
w
Status of Land Acquisition Awards in the State of Madhya Pradesh at EL 95 m is as under: 00
0\
+:>.
"(i) For Agricultural Land
SI No. Tehsil No. of Awards No. of Notification issued under Remarks
villages declared villages
Balance
for
{/)
Awards c::
'"ti
Section 4 Section 6 Section 9 ~
~
3. Barwani 20 16 4 4 4 4 tTJ
(")
(ii) For Abadi Land 0
c::
~
SI No. Tehsil No. of Awards No. of Notification issued under Remarks :;::i
tTJ
villages declared villages
Balance
25
~
for {/)
Awards
3. Barwani 16 12 4 4 4 3"
'N
0
0
v.
~
N
{/)
h
~
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.O.I. [SINHA, J.] 865
" Despite the same, the State now contends: A
"14.1 That the allegations in the application (l.A.4) is that Government
of M.P. is arbitrarily drawing distinction between temporary and
permanent submergence and is not doing rehabilitation as mandated
in NWDTA, and the directions given in the judgement of this Hon'ble
Court. According to sub-clause Il(l) (Chapter IX, Clause XI of B
NWDTA), only such lands of private ownership have to be acquired
which fall below FRL (138.68 M). Agriculn:ral lands affected by
backwater (afflux) are not to be acquired. As per sub-clause II(2),
ibid, only buildings with their appurtenant land between FRL (138:68
M.) and MWL (141.21 M) shall be acquired."
c
The contention of the State of Madhya Pradesh, however, is based pn
sub-clause II( l) of Clause XI of Chapter IX of NWDT Award in terms
whereof allegedly only such lands of private ownership have to be acquired
which fall below FRL 138.68 m and agricultural lands affected by backwat!'!r
(afflux) are not to be acquired. D
It was further contended that in terms of the judgment dated 18.10.2000
of this Court rehabilitation. has to be done pari passu with the constructiqn
of the dam.
r.
---- It is also relevant to mention that the stand of the State of Madhya
Pradesh in terms of the award was that PAFs should be resettled as a village
E
unit as per the stipulation of the NWDT Award as far as possible and upon
taking practical aspects of the matter into consideration.
In terms of NWDT Award, the irrigable lands and house sites were
required to be made available to the PAFs one year in advance of the. F
submergence and requisite amenities were also to be provided. Further, the
notices for vacation of the lands are to be given after completion of the R&R
of the PAFs on or before 3 lst December, i.e., 6 months before actual
submergence (likely on the 1st of July of the next year). In terms of these
stipulations, raising of the dam which would cause submergence would not
be permitted unless rehabilitation programme is carried out. Even in the G
stipulations of the NWDT decision, which has been accepted by the State of
Madhya Pradesh, no distinction was made between permanently affected and
temporarily affected families.
The Award does not make any distinction between permanently affected H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A families and temporarily affected families. Had it been so, the definition of
the 'oustees' would not have been so worded.
It is evident that in the award of the Tribunal no distinction was made
between permanently affected and temporarily affected oustees. The State,
as noticed hereinbefore, in its affidavit filed before this Court in the writ
B petition not only failed and/or neglected to raise such a contention but as
pointed out in the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioners to the affidavit
filed by the State that in fact the State in its affidavits filed before this Court
had taken a firm stand that permanent outstees and temporary outstees stand
on the same footing. The State in support of the aforementioned contention
C had also relied upon documents including the views of several committees
and their reports. Furthermore, the State had adopted a policy ofrehabilitation
of oustees, in terms whereof contentions had been raised and a judgment has
been obtained and in that view of the matter it is now not open to it to raise
a contention which would run counter thereto or inconsistent therewith. The
submission of Mr. Vaidyanathan to the effect that some of the applicants
D herein had been granted only house sites as they were not affected by
permanent submergence, cannot, therefore, be accepted. ft may be true that
the award makes a distinction between those whose agricultural land had
been taken over and those who were in the fringe area and who would face
the problem of residence only. However, the applicants herein do not fall in
E the said category.
The award, as noticed hereinbefore, contained two sub-clauses relating
to the directions on the State Government for compulsory acquisition of the
land by the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act. This obligation on the part of the State to
F acquire land is, thus, neither in doubt nor in dispute. The additional directions
aie that those persons whose 75 per cent or more land of a continuous
holding is required to be compulsorily acquired, will have an option to compel
compulsory acquisition of the entire contiguous holding; and acquisition of
buildings with their appurtenant land situated between FRL + 138.68 metres
(455') and MWL + 141.21 (460') as also those affected by the backwater
G effect resulting from MWL + 1451.21 metres. The submergence due to
maximum water level and backwater would take place only after it reaches
full height.
In the Action Taken Reports (A TRs) of 90-95 m and 95-1 OOm, the
H applicants have been shown as PAFs having been rehabilitated in Gujarat
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 867
purported to be on the basis of allotment of land made behind their back. A
The ATR being a document pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof
permission for increasing the height of the dam was given cannot be igno(ed
and, thus, the State cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the
applicants are not entitled to be rehabilitated at this stage. It is evident that
the State took a different stand at the earlier stage of the proceedings on the
assumption that these oustees would go to Gujarat and as such their B
entitlements were acknowledged, but as soon as they made it clear that they
will prefer rehabilitation in the State, their rights are being denied. This
attitude on the part of the State, as has been observed in the main judgment,
cannot but be deprecated.
Sub-Clause IV (6)(ii) of Clause XI of the Award states that no kind of C
submergence in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall be
permitted unless arrangements are made for rehabilitation of the oustees in .
terms of the directions contained therein. Thus, complete resettlement and
rehabilitation of oustees was a condition precedent for submergence.
From the following excerpts of the Report of the Nannada Control
D
Authority (NCA) which is the highest authority in the matter of implementation
of the Award, it is clear that no such distinction can be made:
"Further, it was decided as per decision in the last meeting of the
Sub-group all possible arrangements for R&R should be made by the E
concerned State Govts. For completing the same in all respect both
in regard to oustees affected by the permanent as well as temporary
submergence six months ahead from submergence. Actual allotment
of land, house plot and payment of compensation etc. and not merely
offer of such facilities as per the R&R package should be made in
respect of all PAFs (both categories of affected by permanent and F
temporary submergence) except in the case of hardcore PAFs who
refuse to accept the package and unwilling to shift."
"Temporary submergence even for a short period can affect the oustees
badly and that it is desirable to keep this in mind while rehabilitating
the oustees." G
"In the light of earlier decision by NCA on this subject, there should
not be any distinction between temporary and permanent PAFs and·
will be pre-requisite for the purpose of further raising of the dam."
The submission of Mr. Vaidyanathan on interpretation of Sub- H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A . clauses II(l) and II (2) of Clause XI ofNWDT Award that such a distinction
is implied, is for the foregoing reasons rejected. The said clause applies only
to the matter relating to land acquisition at the full height of the dam, i.e.,
13 8.68 meters. This Court did not say in the main judgment that pari passu
principle applies only to permanently affected families. If the lands of the
applicants are acquired, they are entitled to rehabilitation.
B
This Court in its judgment in Narmada Bachao Ando/an (supra)
permitted construction of the dam upto 90 metres and opined that further
raising of the height would be only pari passu with the implementation of the
relief and rehabilitation measures.
c In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn. the term "pari passu" has been
defined to mean : "By an equal progress; equably, ratably; without preference".
The expression ''pari passu'', therefore, has a direct nexus with raising
of the height vis-a-vis implementation of relief and rehabilitation progress
D both of whiCh must proceed 'equably' or 'ratably' which would mean that
relief and rehabilitation measures must be undertaken as and when the height
of the dam is further raised. The said expression ,should be construed in a
meaningful manner.
The applicants herein became affected with the raising of the dam at
E 90 metres and remained affected by further raising thereof upto 100 metres
and, thus, in terms of the directions contained in the award as also the
judgment of this Court, it is beyond any cavil that the applicants herein,
irrespective of the fact as to whether they are permanently affected or
temporarily affected, were entitled to the benefit ?f the rehabilitation package.
We are not oblivious of the fact that the river valley of Narmada is shaped
F like an inverted cone and the area of submergence increases exponentially for
each metre of 11eight raised. We are also not· unmindful of the fact that
before this Court it was contended by the original writ petitioners that whole
land up to 138 metres should be acquired, people immediately be resettled
and all requisite studies be done upto that level before permitting the dam
G height to be raised. It is only in that context this Court used the expression
'pari passu'.
We may notice that an observation has been made by the Chairman of
R&R Sub-group in the meeting held on l l .4.1994 that temporary submergence
even for a short period can affect the oustees badly and it is desirable to keep
H this in mind while rehabilitating the oustees. In the meeting held on
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 869
l8.l2.l998, it was observed : A
"In the light of earlier decision by NCA on this subject, there should
not be any distinction between temporary and permanent PAFs and
will be pre-requisite for the purpose of further raising of the dam."
Our attention has been drawn to various orders of the GRA to the effect B
that a distinction has been made between the temporary affectees and
permanent affectees. We do not subscribe to the said view.
We are of the opinion that all the applicants who were both permanently
and temporarily affected by submergence by reason of raising of the height
of the dam to the present height would be entitled to the .benefit of the C
rehabilitation package.
MAJOR SONS:
The definition of family indisputably includes major sons. A plain
reading of the said definition clearly shows that even where a major son of p
the land-holder did not possess land separately, he would be entitled to grant
of a separate holding. The State of Gujarat, it is trite to notice, has extended
this facility even to unmarried daughters.
The definition of"family" has to be read along with that of the "oustee".
We may notice that "oustee family" and "displaced family" have E
interchangeably been used in the Award. They, thus, carry the same meaning.
In paragraph l 52 of the main judgment, this Court noticed that every
affected family must be allotted land, a house plot and other amenities. In
paragraph 176 thereof, it was noticed:
F
"According to the Tribunal's award, the sons who had become major
one year prior to the issuance of the notification for land acquisition
were entitled to be allotted land."
It is now well-settled that when the interpretation clause used an inclusive
definition, it would be expansive in nature. G
In G.P. Singh's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation", Ninth Edition
- 2004, at page l 66, it is stated :
"The word 'includes' is often used in interpretation clauses in order
to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.
A of the statute. When it is so used these words and phrases must be
construed as comprehending not only such thing as they signify
according to their nature and import but also those things which the
interpretation clause declares that they shall include ..."
[See also Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. and Anr. v. State of UP. and
B Ors., (2005) AIR sew 613]
Once major son comes within the purview of expansive definition of
family, it would be idle to contend that the scheme of giving 'land for land'
would be applicable to only those major sons who were landholders in their
own rights If a person was a landholder, he in his own right would be
C entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation scheme and, thus, for the said purpose,
an expansive definition of family was not· necessarily to be rendered. ..
'
Furthermore, if such a meaning is attributed as has been suggested by Mr.
Vaidyanathan, the definition of 'family' would be to an extent would become
obscure. As a major son constitutes 'separate family' within the interpretation
D clause of 'family', no meaning thereto can be given.
In I.A. No. 11 of 2003, there is no dispute as regard the age of the
concerned applicants. In that case, two of the landholders Athiya and Khatriya
died even prior to the issuance of the notification. This Court in paragraphs
152 and 176 of the main judgment specifically referred to the entitlement of
E the major sons (18 years old). The major sons, therefore, cannot be denied
the said benefit. A half-hearted contention was raised on behalf of the State
that those who had not been granted land might not have become major on
the date of notification. Such a contention had not been raised before the
GRA. We at this stage cannot permit a new plea to be raised and that too
F without any pleading and supporting material brought on records in that
behalf.
Each of the 8 applicants were, thus, in reality a landholder in their own
right since their fathers Athiya and Khatriya died even prior to issuance of
the notification under Section 4 of the Act. They, therefore, could not have
G been directed to be given only a house plot on the ground that they were
adult sons of the landholders. The applicants, Athia Dhoklia and Khatria
Peecha, not only had asked for allotment of land in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, they had filed these applications long back. It is to be noticed that
---".
Noorjiya S/o Mahariya had not been given the benefit of allotment of land
although his brother Bunda and his mother Kajli had been recognized as
H eligible for allotment of agricultural land to the extent of 2 hectares each.
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 871
There is, thus, no ground to deny the said benefit to Noorjiya. A
Several contentions involving factual dispute had, we may notice, not
been raised before the GRA. The GRA had been constituted with a purpose,
namely, that the matters relating to rehabilitation scheme must be addressed
by it at the first instance. This Court cannot entertain applications raising
grievances involving factual issues raised by the parties. The GRA being B
.-- headed by a former Chief Justice of the High Court would indisputably .be
entitlea to adjudicate upon such disputes. It is also expected that the parties
should ordinarily abide by such decision. This Court may entertain an
application only when extra-ordinary situation emerges.
CHOICE OF LAND : c
In ~ case of this nature we do not accept the contention raised on behalf
of the applicants herein that the oustees are entitled to opt· for land of their
choice and the State is bound to acquire or purchase lands for the said
purpose. The State has constituted a land bank. Normally, those lands which D
are available from the land bank should be allotted and in relation thereto, the
parties may have a choice. But they cannot reject such land only unless it is
shown that the lands are not irrigable or cultivable or otherwise unsuitable.
In view of the dicta of this Court that the oustees would be better off at the
rehabilitated place, they should be offered lands which are really cultivable
or irrigable. They are also entitled to the basic civil amenities and benefits as E
specified in the Award. In this view of the matter, if and when necessary the
GRA would be entitled to consider the matter in accordance with law and
pass a suitable directions.
This Court in the main judgment did not say that the oustees are to be
relocated as a community. The question of rehabilitation inevitably would F
arise as and when they become entitled thereto.
EXTENT OF LAND :
It is not in dispute that the award provided that every displaced family,
whose 25% or more agricultural landholding has been acquired, shall be G
entitled to be allotted irrigable land to the extent of land acquired subject to·
prescribed ceiling of the State with a minimum of two hectares of land.
It is, however, not in dispute that the lands offered by NVDA, a State
Forum, have been found acceptable by the applicants belonging to Village H
I
i
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.
A Jalsindhi. We direct the Respondents to allot such lands immediately to them.
Having regard to the fact that the farm lands available at village Khajuri
would be insufficient for allotment to th~ applicants of I.A. No. I I, the matter
may be considered afresh by the GRA. · We agree with the opinion of the
GRA that the applicants therein would not be entitled to allotment of land of
B their choice but the land offered to them should be irrigable ar:id cultivable
in tenns of the judgment of this Court as well as the award of the Tribunal.
We hope and trust that the parties hereto shall render all cooperation with
the GRA for the purpose of finding out suitable irrigable and cultivable lands
for allotment thereof to the applicants of village. Pichhodi at an early date and
preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication
C of this order.
CONCLUSION :
These applications are disposed of with the aforementioned directions.
In the facts and circumstances of the ~ase, there shall be no order as to costs.
D
R.P. Applications disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Resettlement"Sign in to search