Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA NOS.42,43,50-51 & 52-53

IN WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 328/2002

Narmada Bachao Andolan ..Petitioner versus

Union of India and others ..Respondents In the Matter of: Kailash Awasya and others etc. etc. ..Applicants

WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NO.7663/2016

O R D E R

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI

We have heard this matter over a number of days.  The instant  exercise  is  being  carried  out,  so  as  to  arrive  at  an equitable  settlement,  for  the  rehabilitation  of  the  'project affected  families',  consequent  upon  the  implementation  of  the Sardar Sarovar Project. The figures, which we will indicate in our order, may be treated as tentative.  It will be open to others similarly situate, to seek the same relief, by establishing their credentials (before the Grievance Redressal Authority).  2. We are informed, that rehabilitation packages, had to be

Page 2

2

offered to 4998 'project affected families' in the State of Madhya Pradesh.  Out of these 'project affected families', 4774 families opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', namely, they would accept cash payment as compensation, and would purchase land out of the said payment. The aforestated payment was to be made in two installments.   The  first  installment  would  be  spent  as  earnest money,  and  the  second  installment  would  constitute  the  final payment for executing the sale deed.  Out of the 4774 families, who had opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', 4264 families are stated to have accepted, both installments.  Out of the 4998 'project  affected  families',  according  to  the  learned  Attorney General (and the other learned counsel representing the concerned State Governments), 4264 have been fully compensated.  These 4264 'project  affected  families'  are  not  entitled  to  any  further compensation. 3. Out  of  those,  who  had  opted  for  the  'Special Rehabilitation  Package',  386  families  were  extended  the  first installment  only,  and  could  not  be  favoured  with  the  second installment.  They are disputants before this Court.  In addition to these disputants, there were 120 families, who did not accept any  money  whatsoever,  and  another  4  families  which  were  in litigation with reference to the compensation payable.  Calculated in terms of the figures, indicated hereinabove, 510 (386 + 120 + 4) 'project affected families', are still entitled to compensation, as they had not been extended full compensation. This position has been acknowledged by the Union of India (as also, the concerned State Governments).

Page 3

3

4. Besides those who opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', there were some families who had sought land in lieu of land,  and  not  cash  payment,  under  the  'Special  Rehabilitation Package'.  In fact, we are informed, there were 224 such families. Out of those 224 families, 53 families accepted the land offered to them, without any objection.  These 53 project affected families, according  to  the  learned  Attorney  General  (and  other  learned counsel representing the concerned State Governments), have been fully compensated, and as such, their claim cannot be treated as a surviving  claim.   The  remaining  171  families,  have  not  been compensated,  even  though  they  are  'project  affected  families'. These 171 'project affected families' are admittedly entitled to their rehabilitation claim. 5. Based  on  the  figures,  depicted  in  the  foregoing  two paragraphs,  it  is  apparent,  that  681  families  are  yet  to  be extended compensation (510 'project affected families', which had originally opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package' + 171 families which had claimed land in lieu of land). 6. During the course of our deliberations, it came to be accepted  at  one  stage,  that  compensation  to  these  681  families should be determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.  However, based on the suggestions made at the behest of the learned counsel for the applicants, that the land value in the vicinity ranges from Rupees fifteen lakhs per hectare, to Rupees eighty lakhs per hectare, we were of the view, that it would be more appropriate to finally determine the compensation, here and now. The average suggested payment at the behest of the learned

Page 4

4

counsel for the applicants would be in the range of Rupees thirty lakhs per hectare, and as such, every affected family would be entitled to approximately, Rupees sixty lakhs, in terms of their entitlement (for two hectares of land) as compensation.  Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India suggested, that the agreed figure be, fixed at Rupees forty five lakhs, in lieu of two hectares of land to which they are entitled, and that, the matter be concluded here and now itself. 7. Having  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the suggestions made at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are satisfied in directing the concerned authority, to pay compensation to the 681 'project affected families', who have yet  to  receive  compensation,  and  who  have  been  fully  described above,  at the rate of Rupees sixty lakhs per family, as a matter of full and final settlement.  An undertaking in this behalf should be obtained, before the amount of compensation is released. 8. It is also apparent, that a large number of families, out of the 4264 families which had received both installments, under the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', were duped.  The number of duped 'project affected families', indicated in the Justice S.S. Jha Commission's Report, is 1358.  This number is affirmed by the learned Attorney General for India, and confirmed by the respective State  counsel.   Referring  to  these  1358  families,  the  Jha Commission  in its  report of  January, 2016, had observed as under:

Page 5

5

“(29) Poor oustees particularly tribals have been looted  by  middlemen.   They  have  lost  their livelihood  and  are  not  daily  wagers.   Their installments  have  been  siphoned  off  by  the middlemen.   When  oustees  appeared  before  the Commission were not even having clothes to wear. They have wrapped small cloth or towel round their waist when they appeared before the Commission.”  

(emphasis is ours) It is in the above circumstances, that the Jha Commission recorded the following conclusions, in its report:

“CONCLUSION 1. The reason for fake sale deeds is a faulty SRP policy of the Government. The Government was not having sufficient irrigated agricultural lands in their Land Banks near the R & R sites.  The Policy itself is against Narmada Award, and the judgment of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court has observed that the PAFs and PAPs should live better life has been frustrated by this Policy. (i). By  not  allowing  any  scrutiny  of  the  sale deeds  and  free  hand  has  been  given  to  the Rehabilitation  Officers  and  Land  Acquisition Officers  in  disbursing  the  compensation  which resulted into large number of fake sale deeds. (ii) The free access to middlemen in the Office of  NVDA  in  getting  the  money  withdrawn  of  the oustees  also  reflects  about  the  interest  of middlemen  and  nexus  with  NVDA  officials.  Though evidence is not received against the NVDA officials all the oustees have stated that they were made to sit outside the NVDA office and their work was done by the middlemen and they were made to sign on the papers  without  explaining  the  contents  discloses that  NVDA  officials  had  obtained  signatures  or thumb  impressions   of  the  oustees  without explaining the contents demonstrate irregularity on their part and they are prima facie responsible for large number of fake registries. 2. The quality of construction was very poor without any planning.  No geographical mapping was done  before  selecting  the  R  &  R  sites  whereby cultivable good black cotton soil is converted into house building sites for residential plots.  There was  a  faulty  policy  of  not  establishing  a

Page 6

6

laboratory  to  test  the  soil  for  carrying  out constructions  on  the  black  cotton  soil.   The construction was done on the R & R sites on common maps and designs of the building. Superior officers had never cared to visit R & R sites to examine the construction  work.  The  Government  has  found  40 engineers  responsible  for  substandard  quality  of construction,  but  has  not  cared  to  rectify  the defect after finding the substandard construction. Most of the places the expenditure on construction has gone waste as the R & R sites are not occupied by the oustees or they are occupied by very few PAPs  and  PAFs.   Thus,  the  expenditure  on  these sites is waste of money. 3. The NVDA has not maintained proper records relating  to  livelihood  grants  and  alternative livelihood which itself demonstrate that there was large scale corruption in the livelihood grants and alternative livelihood. The officers of NVDA involved in allotment of house plot sites have not followed the Rules framed by the Government in allotting the plots.  They have allotted the plots in an arbitrary matter and usurp the power of changing the allotment which was not vested with them.  Thus, this shows their corrupt intention. Any arbitrary action attracts the vice of mala fide.  The officers involved in allotment of plots are wholly responsible for irregularities and corruption in allotment and change of plots.”

(emphasis is ours) 9. We  are  of  the  considered  view,  that  even  though  the above-mentioned  1358  project  affected  families  were  paid  both installments,  they  need  to  be  further  compensated,  so  as  to alleviate their hardship, as they have not been able to purchase land in lieu of land, not because of their own fault or lapse, but because  they  were  duped.  This  would  enable  them  to  purchase alternative  land  at  the  lesser  rate  suggested  by  the  learned counsel for the applicants.  It is in the above view of the matter, that we hereby direct the concerned authorities, to pay these 1358 project  affected  families,  a  sum  of  rupees  fifteen  lakhs  per

Page 7

7

family.  While making the instant payment, earlier installments made to such families, shall be deducted (from out of the sum of Rupees fifteen lakhs). At the time of making the above payment, the concerned authority shall obtain an undertaking from the concerned 'project affected family', that the instant payment would be as a matter  of  final  settlement  of  their  claim,  arising  out  of  the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar Project.  Any such claimant, who fails to furnish the above undertaking, would not be entitled to any payment of compensation. 10. The above order takes into consideration the issue of compensation, towards all 'project affected families'. 11. We have not addressed the issue of the amenities, that needed to have been extended to the concerned families, in terms of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award, dated 12.12.1979.  In order  to  address  any  such  grievance  (with  reference  to  the amenities  postulated  under  the  Tribunal's  award,  referred  to above), we permit such of the 'project affected families', who have any grievance, to raise the same, before the concerned Grievance Redressal Authority, within one month from today. In case such a representation is made, and is accepted by the concerned Grievance Redressal  Authority,  the  concerned   State  Government  shall implement the recommendation, as expeditiously as possible, without raising any unnecessary objection. In case, any of the “project affected families” is not satisfied with the recommendations made by the Grievance Redressal Authority (on the representation, or alternatively, if no decision is taken thereon, within three months of registration of such representation), it shall be open to such

Page 8

8

family,  to  pursue  its  cause  before  a  Court  of  competent jurisdiction, in consonance with law. 12. All connected petitions/applications are disposed of in the above terms.  Payment in consonance with the instant order, (to the 681 'project affected families', referred to above) by the concerned State Government shall first be released to the Narmada Valley  Development  Authority  (for  short  'NVDA'),  which  in  turn shall deposit the compensation payable to the 681 'project affected families', in the account of the Grievance Redressal Authority, within two months from today.  The above amount shall positively be released, to the concerned 681 project affected families, within one  month  thereafter.   The  same  procedure  is  directed  to  be followed with respect to the 1358 project affected families, which are stated to have been duped. 13. All  the  occupants  including  all  the  'project  affected families' shall vacate the submergence area under reference, on or before  31.07.2017,  and  in  case  there  are  individuals  in  the submergence area, after the aforesaid deposit has been made into the account of the Grievance Redressal Authority, after 31.07.2017, it  shall  be  open  to  the  State  Government  to  remove  all  such individuals forcibly. 14. The  order  passed  hereinabove,  is  exclusively  directed towards  the  resettlement  and  rehabilitation  of  the  'project affected families', in the State of Madhya Pradesh.  We hereby direct the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra to conclude all the commuted  resettlement  and  rehabilitation  activities,  in  the respective States, within three months from today.

Page 9

9

15. In view of the consolidated order passed by us today, all pending  litigations,  civil  and  criminal,  emerging  out  of  the recommendations made by the Jha Commission, in the report dated January, 2016, shall come to an end. 16.   The instant order has been passed by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and with the tacit consent of the Union of India (and the concerned State  Governments),  and  shall  not  ever  be  treated   as   a precedent, or  be  cited  for  similar  claims  for compensation.  

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

…...................CJI [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

…....................J. [N.V. RAMANA]

NEW DELHI; ….....................J. FEBRUARY 08, 2017. [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD]

Page 10

10

ITEM NO.10               COURT NO.1               SECTION PIL(W)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos. 42, 43, 50-51 & 52-53 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).   328/2002 NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN                             Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                            Respondent(s) In The Matter of: Kailash Awasya and others etc. etc.   Applicant(s) (for directions, permission to file addl. documents & exemption  from filing O.T.  and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 7663/2016 (With appln.(s) for permission to file lengthy list of dates and  Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 08/02/2017 These applications/petition were called on for  

       hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Applicant(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Mr. Clifton Doozario, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. Ms. Nini Susan Thomas, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Medha patkar, in person

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan,AOR in WP 328/2002                       For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG in SLP 7663/2016 Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv. & for respondent(s) Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. in WP & IAs For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG (Narmada Control Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Authority) Mr. Syed Naqvi, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

Page 11

11

for MOEF Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv. Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv. Ms. Manita Verma, Adv. for Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR

For MOWR Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. for Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR

State of Gujarat Mr. Ashok Desai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.

State of Mr. Arvind V. Savamt. Sr. Adv.  Maharashtra Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shemshery, AAG

Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. for Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR  

                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Interlocutory applications/petitions stand disposed of,  in terms of the Reportable signed order.

 (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar                       AR-cum-PS

[Reportable Signed Order is placed on the file]