Narmada Bachao Andolan and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
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/
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,
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.
4. On 12 December 1979, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal1
rendered its final order and decision. Among the issues which we re
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 Acquisiti on and
711
Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons) provides for the allotment of
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
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 m utually
agreed 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 ye arly
instalments free of interest. Where land is allotted in Madhya
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
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
(iii) A minimum of two hectares (five acres) to be allotte d per
family.
6. The rest of the provisions which have been extracted ab ove
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.
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”
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
“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
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
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
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
Officer, Sardar Sarovar Project in the case of the applic ant indicating
that the land which was acquired was 4.293 hectares and determi ning
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
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 V alley
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
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 (2000) 10 SCC 664
713
(ii) The area of the affected land was 4.293 hectares;
(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.
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
India5. The Court noted that it was carrying out the exercise to arrive at
an equitable settlement for the rehabilitation of the pro ject affected
families, consequent upon the implementation of the Sardar S arovar
Project. The factual narration in the text of the order indicates the
following position:
(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 Spec ial
Rehabilitation Package in terms of which they would accept
cash payment as compensation;
(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
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
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
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
(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
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
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 r eproduced
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
learned counsel for the applicants, that the land value in the vicinity
ranges from Rupees fifteen lakhs per hectare, to Rupe es eighty
lakhs per hectare, we were of the view, that it would be mo re
appropriate to finally determine the compensation, here and now.
The average suggested payment at the behest of the lear ned
counsel for the applicants would be in the range of Rupees thirty
lakhs per hectare, and as such, every affected family would b e
entitled to approximately, Rupees sixty lakhs, in terms of the ir
entitlement (for two hectares of land) as compensation. Mr. Mukul
Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India suggested, that t he
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.”
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
made at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties, we
715
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.”
17. Besides the above directions, the Court also noted that about
1,358 project affected families were found to have been d uped, as
indicated in the report of a Commission of Enquiry described a s 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
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:
“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 Auth ority,
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.
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
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 Sta tes of
Gujarat and Maharashtra to conclude all the commute d
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 Stat e
Governments), and shall not ever be treated as a precedent, or be
cited for similar claims for compensation.”
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
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
represent the full entitlement of the applicant. The GRA reje cted 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 cert iorari or
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
the rate of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) per hectare for
717
the 4.293 hact. of land acquired from the petitioner as per t he
Supreme Court’s order dated 08.02.2017.
(iii) Direct the respondents to pay an additional a mount 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
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
was Rs 60 lakhs and no more.
22. The order of the High Court was sought to be questioned in a
Special Leave Petition 6 before this Court. On 19 February 2018, the
Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn in ter ms of the
following order:
“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, afte r some
arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition
and states that he will move the Court for review/clarifica tion/
modification of order dated 8.2.2017 in WP(C) no. 3 28/
2002(Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors.).
Permission is granted. The special leave petition is accor dingly
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
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 ap plicant had opted
for land in lieu of land in terms of the Tribunal’s A ward, she had
represented that the land which was allotted was uncultivabl e. In this
backdrop, the submission of senior counsel is that the order of this Court
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 l akhs per
6 SLP(C) No 4485 of 2018
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
hectare and with the holding of two hectares. Senior counsel submitted
that while the applicant has no dispute about the compensatio n 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
would work out to approximately Rs 1.28 crores and not Rs 60 la khs
which has been offered in pursuance of the order dated 8 Fe bruary
2017.
25. Opposing these submissions, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional
Solicitor General, has urged that the order of this Court dated 8 February
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
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
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
that the applicant should be granted compensation at the rate of R s 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
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
noted in paragraph 6 of the order extracted above that it was of the view
719
that it would be more appropriate “to finally determine the compensation,
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.
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. Tha t 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 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 det ermination.
There is no doubt about the legal position that the Award of the Tribunal
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 A ward 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 res olve the
controversy once and for all.
28. The Court also had before it 1358 project affected famili es
who had been duped and who had not actually received any compensation
at all. It is in this backdrop that the Court passed a c onsolidated order
covering all claims and directed that in view of its order, all pending
litigation, civil and criminal, arising out of the recommendations contained
in the report of the Justice S S Jha Commission dated Januar y 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 Maharasht ra would
also conclude all the resettlement and rehabilitation activities within three
months from the date of the order. The settlement package of R s 60
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
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
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.
29. For the above reasons, we are of the view that there i s 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 w ith
connected applications
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 seeki ng the
benefit of the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017. How ever,
according to the counsel, GRA has not taken any decisi on on the
application.
31. If the GRA has yet not taken any decision, as stated be fore
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, disp ose of
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 op en 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
present applications.
33. The applications are accordingly disposed of.
IA Nos 184229 of 2018, 184220 of 2018, 184221 of 201 8,
184236 of 2018, 184237 of 2018, 184244 of 2018, 184246 of 2018,
184240 of 2018, 184241 of 2018 and 184242 of 2018
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)