REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._1211   OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) 30685 of 2009)

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.     ..Appellants

Verus

Bheru Singh & Ors.                    ..Respondents WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1212         OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 10163/2010

Bheru Singh & Ors.     ..Appellants

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. ..Respondents

J U D G E M E N T  

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.   

Leave granted.

2. These  two  appeals  arise  out  of  the  judgement  and  

order  dated  11.08.2009  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  

Pradesh, Bench at  Indore in a public interest petition bearing Writ  

Petition  No.  48  of  2004  against  which  the  State  of  Madhya

Pradesh  as  also  the  respondents  Bheru  Singh  alongswith  two  

others which include a social activist have filed separate Special  

Leave  Petitions  bearing  Nos.  30685/2009  and  10163/2010  

respectively giving rise to these two appeals which are confined to  

some of the directions only, that were issued by the High Court in  

its impugned judgement, to be stated hereinafter.   

3. The material factual details of these two appeals have  

a  prolonged history  giving  rise  to  a  labyrinth  of  litigation  which  

emerged as a consequence of displacement of large number of  

persons from a massive area of agricultural and homestead land  

which were in occupation of the oustees/displaced persons, due to  

land acquisition which was done for the purpose of construction of  

Man  Dam  on  the  tributary  of  Narmada  River  in  the  State  of  

Madhya Pradesh.  This had given rise to the filing of several other  

writ  petitions in  the High Court  of  Madhya Pradesh in  the past  

which gave rise to the appeals reaching even upto this Court and  

are reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664, (2005) 4 SCC 32 and (2011) 7  

SCC 639 which are commonly referred to as Narmada Bachao Ist  

judgment, Narmada Bachao IInd judgment and Narmada Bachao  

IIIrd judgement.   

4. But before we discuss the relevance and implications  

of these judgements on the instant appeals, it would be relevant to  

2

relate the historical background of the matter giving rise to a spate  

of litigations in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.  In this context,  

it  may  be  stated  that  a  detailed  Project  Report  (DPR)  for  the  

construction of ‘Man Dam’ on the tributary of Narmada River at  

Village  Jirabad,  Tehsil  Gandhwani,  District  Dhar,  having  a  total  

submergence area of  1168.67 hectares in  17 villages of  Tehsil  

Dhar and Gandhwani, District Dhar, M.P. was submitted in July,  

1982.  A Rehabilitation and Re-settlement (R & R) was framed by  

the  State  of  M.P.  for  the  project  affected  families  (PAF)  and  

oustees of  Narmada Project  including ‘Man Dam’.   This R & R  

policy  was  later  on  amended  several  times  in  which  the  latest  

amendment  was  made  in  the  year  2003.   The  Planning  

Commission of India accorded investment clearance for the ‘Man  

Project’  out of total submergence area of 1168.67 hectares and  

584.646  hectares  of  private  land  was  acquired  by  invoking  the  

provision  of  Land Acquisition,  1894.   In  the  construction of  the  

‘Man Dam’ which took place between the year 1991-1994, 1266  

families were affected, out of  which 448 families lost  their  land.  

Out of these 448 families, 62 families opted for land as per the  

policy  and  they  were  given  land  in  the  year  1994  itself.   The  

remaining 386 families accepted full cash compensation in terms  

of Clause 5.1 of R & R policy.   

3

5. However,  since  the  displaced  persons  were  still  

dissatisfied,  the  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh  as  a  welfare  

measure took a decision in 2002 to grant ‘Special Rehabilitation  

Grant’  (SRG) to the families/oustees who had lost  their  land in  

submergence in the Narmada Project in order to enable them to  

purchase land of their  own choice to the extent they lost in the  

submergence on condition that they will  not claim any land from  

the Government.  The benefit of SRG was also extended to the  

families/oustees who had lost  their  land in  submergence in  the  

‘Man Project’.  Out of the 386 families who had accepted full cash  

compensation  in  terms  of  Clause  5.1  of  R  &  R  policy,  337  

oustees/PAF came forward and accepted the SRG.  The intention  

behind the approval of SRG was that every oustees’ level of living  

should not be lower than what it was before displacement, even if  

they  cannot  be  made  better  off.   The  oustees  who  had  been  

provided land for  land by the Government  were not  eligible  for  

Special Rehabiliation Grant.   

6. However,  while  implementing  the  R  &  R  Policy  and  

distributing  the  SRG,  disputes  arose  between  the  displaced  

persons and the executing authorities of the State of M.P. In order  

to  resolve  the  same,  the  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh  

constituted a Committee known as Grievance Redressal Authority.  

4

Subsequently,  the  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh  issued  a  

notification  dated  11.06.2002  extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  

Grievances Redressal Authority (GRA) to hear the grievances of  

the displaced families of the Man Dam Project who started hearing  

the  grievances  of  the  displaced  families  from  July,  2002  with  

regard  to  their  rehabilitation  and  resettlement  and  continued  to  

pass orders on the grievances of the displaced families of  Man  

Dam Project till 2003.   

7. Aggrieved by some of the orders passed by the GRA  

as well as the inadequate measures adopted by the Government  

of Madhya Pradesh for rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced  

families of the ‘Man Dam Project’, the respondents 1 and 2 who  

are tribals living in villages Khedi-Balwadi and Khanpura of District  

Dhar  alongwith  Respondent  No.  3 who is  stated to be a social  

activist working with the people of displaced families of Man Dam  

Project which have been submerged by the Man Dam Project, filed  

a writ petition in 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution as a PIL  

claiming appropriate  reliefs.   Response of  the State  of  Madhya  

Pradesh  was  duly  filed  on  21.6.2004  in  the  writ  petition  No.  

48/2004 and in  paragraph B  it  was  specifically  stated   that  62  

project affected families who demanded land for land  has been  

given land and all the  orders of GRA have been complied  with  

5

and thus substantial compliance  of R & R Policy  was also made.  

On 17.2.2005, the State  of Madhya Pradesh  filed further reply to  

the rejoinder of the petitioner – Bheru Singh  in W.P.No.48/2004  

and  in  paragraph  B  it  was  specifically  stated  that  62  project  

affected families who demanded land for land has been given land  

and  with the help of SRG, the oustees have even purchased more  

land comparatively to the lost land in the submergence and have  

even saved the money.

8. Still further on 19.3.2009, the State of Madhya Pradesh  

filed its reply in the writ petition No.48/2004 submitting  the status  

with regard to the rehabilitation of 448 families who had lost their  

land   in  submergence.   In  the  affidavit,  the  State  of  Madhya  

Pradesh  submitted that out of 448 families, 386 families accepted  

the  full cash compensation as per R & R Policy and remaining  62  

who demanded land,  have been allotted land in  the year  1994  

itself.  Out of these 386 families, 337 families  accepted SRG and  

out of remaining of  49 families  26 families  approached GRA for  

allotment  of  land  but  their  claim  was  rejected  as   they  have  

already accepted full cash compensation.  Thereafter, on 1.5.2009,  

the State of  Madhya Pradesh  filed further affidavit  in the writ  

petition  No.  48/2004  wherein  it  was  clarified   that   the   cash  

compensation was  given   to  the land holders  in  1995 with  the  

6

direction to the bank to initially disburse only 50 per cent  of the  

amount , with the balance 50 per cent  being payable  only after  

obtaining   an  order  in  that  behalf   from  the  concerned  Land  

Acquisition Officer.

9. The Hon’ble High Court vide its impugned order dated  

11.8.2009  passed in W.P.No.48/2004 was pleased to hold  that  

there was substantial compliance  of R & R Policy  but by relying  

on a previous judgment and order  dated  21.2.2008 passed by the  

High  Court  of  M.P.  in   W.P.No.4457/2007  (Narmada  Bachao  

Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) directed the State to allot  

land to the  adult son irrespective of the fact whether he had lost  

the land or not.  It has been stated herein by the State of  Madhya  

Pradesh   that  subsequently  the  three  Judge   Bench  of  the  

Supreme  Court  by  its  judgment   and  order  dated   11.5.2011  

passed in Civil Appeal No. 2082/2011 reported in  (2011) 7 SCC  

639 set aside the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed in  

W.P.No.4457/2007 and held  that the adult sons are not entitled for  

allotment of land as per the R & R Policy. However, the High Court  

vide  its  impugned  judgment  had  already  disposed  of  the  writ  

petition with the following directions:

“(i) We hold that there has been substantial compliance  of paragraphs 3.2(a) and 3.2 (b) of the Rehabilitation Policy  which  provides  for  allotment  of  agricultural  land,  

7

government or private, to the displaced families and there  is no violation of fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed  under  Article  21  of  the  Constitution  and,  therefore,  no  direction need be given by this court in this regard;  (ii) We  hold  that  SRG  amount  together  with  compensation paid to the displaced families computed on  the basis of average sale price per acre prevalent in the  year  1997-98  was  sufficient  to  enable  the  displaced  families to purchase as much land was acquired from them  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and no decision can  be  given  by  the  Court  to  the  Respondents/State  to  pay  SRG amount on the basis of average sale price of the year  2001-02, this being a policy matter; (iii) We direct that every son who had become a major  on or before the date of notification under Section 4 of Land  Acquisition  Act,  but  who  was  part  of  larger  family  from  whom  land  has  been  acquired   will  be  treated  as  a  separate displaced family and would be allotted agricultural  land as per paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Rehabilitation Policy  for the Man Project  and in case he does not opt for land in  accordance with paragraph 5 of Rehabilitation Policy, will  be  paid  SRG  in  addition  to  compensation  under  Land  Acquisition  Act,  in  accordance  with  notification  dated  7.3.2002  of  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Narmada  Valley Development Authority,  by the Respondents within  four months from today; (iv) We hold that  the definition of  ‘displaced family’  in  paragraph  1(b)  of  the  Rehabilitation  Policy  does  not  discriminate against women and is not violative of Articles  14 and 21 of the Constitution, but women who are included  in the definition of “displaced persons” will be given those  benefits  under  the  Rehabilitation  Policy  by  the  Respondents which are to be given to “displaced persons;  (v) We  hold  that  respondents  were  not  entitled  to  deduct the amount of compensation payable for trees and  wells located on the land of oustees as determined under  the award  passed under  the Land Acquisition  Act,  1894  from the SRG amount paid to the oustees and we direct the  respondents to refund such compensation amount to the  oustees with interest @ 9 per cent per annum calculated  from the date on which the amount was deducted till the  date on which the amount was deducted till  the date on  which refund in made to them.”

8

10. The State of Madhya Pradesh which was respondent in  

the writ  petition before the High Court  feeling aggrieved by the  

decision of the High Court have filed this appeal arising out of the  

SLP  No.  30685/2009  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  

challenging directions Nos. (iii) and (v)  issued by the High Court.

11.     The respondents/displaced persons on the other hand  

are also aggrieved of the directions of the High Court given out at  

para Nos. (ii) and (iv) and have therefore separately filed Special  

Leave Petition bearing SLP (C) No.10163/2010, wherein they have  

essentially challenged the directions of the High Court by which it  

has  declined  to  grant   the  relief   to  the  petitioners  seeking  a  

direction for each  displaced family.  But specifically, the directions  

of  the  High  Court   in  paragraph  No.  37  (i)  (ii)  and  (iv)  of  the  

impugned order and also partially the portion of direction No. 37  

(iii) which directs payment of SRG in lieu  of  land entitlements  in  

paragraphs   (iii)  and  (v)  of  R  and  R Policy   to   adult  sons  of  

cultivators  as well as   failure of the High Court to pass directions  

with  regard  to  relief  at  clause  9  of  the  writ  petition  is  under  

challenge at the instance of the petitioner Bheru Singh and  others  

against the aforesaid directions.

9

12. The  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  in  this  appeal  has  

primarily  raised  substantial  questions  of  law  as  to  whether  the  

Hon’ble High Court has erred in law in holding that every son who  

had  become  major  on  or  before  the  date  of  notification  under  

Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  is  entitled  for  separate  

allotment of land in spite of the fact that the issue regarding the  

allotment  of  land  to  adult/major  son  was  pending  consideration  

before  the  Supreme  Court  wherein  the  Supreme  Court  by  its  

interim order directed that the applications pertaining to allotment  

of land to major son of oustees will not be disposed of or decided  

by GRA till issue is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  

13. The question has  further  been raised as to  whether  

the High Court has erred in holding whether the major son is a  

‘displaced family’  or  a ‘displaced person’  contrary to the R & R  

Policy if  he had not  been cultivating land for  at  least  one year  

before the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the  

Land Acquisition Act specially if  he had not been cultivating the  

land in  the capacity  of  the land owner  in  absence of  which  he  

would merely be a labourer.  

14. Further question which has been raised at the instance  

of State of Madhya Pradesh is whether the High Court has erred in  

directing the petitioner to refund compensation payable for trees  

10

and wells located on the land of the outstees with interest at the  

rate of  9 per cent without appreciating the basic genesis of the  

provisions  of  SRG.   Still  further,  the  question  which  has  been  

raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh is whether the High Court  

has erred in directing the appellant State of Madhya Pradesh to  

allot separate land to the major sons of the oustees of the Man  

Dam in spite of the fact that the appellant-State has substantially  

complied with the provisions of the rehabilitation policy and there is  

no violation of right of livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution  

of India and the objective of the Rehabilitation Policy has already  

been achieved.  

15. Learned  senior  counsel  Shri  P.S.  Patwalia,  representing  

the State of Madhya Pradesh, while assailing the impugned directions  

of the High Court  has first of all raised some preliminary issues.  At the  

outset, it  was stated that a three Judge Bench of this Court vide its  

judgment  dated  11.5.2011  passed  in  Civil  Appeal  No.2082/2011  

reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 had set aside the judgment  and order  

dated 21.2.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ  

Petition No.4457/2007 and it was pleased to hold that the adult sons  

are  entitled for allotment of  land as per the R & R Policy.    

16. As  already  stated  earlier,  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  

had constituted  a Grievance Redressal Authority  (‘GRA’ for short) by  

11

order dated  11.6.2002 to hear the grievances of the oustees  of Man  

Project also and in the year 2003-2004, the construction of the Man  

Dam was complete.  Thereafter, 337 families out of 386  families had  

accepted  SRG  and  out  of  the  remaining  49  families,  26  families  

approached GRA for the allotment of  land but their claim was rejected  

as  they  had  already  accepted  the  full  cash  compensation.    This  

prompted the oustees in the year 2007 to file a writ petition  bearing  

No.4457/2007  in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which gave  rise  

to Civil Appeal No. 2082/2011 which was heard and decided by a three  

Judge Bench vide its judgment and order dated 11.5.2011 reported in  

(2011) 7 SCC 639.  As a consequence thereof, the three Judge Bench  

of this Court set aside the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed  

in Writ Petition No. 4457/2007 and was pleased to hold that the  adult  

sons are not entitled  for allotment  of separate holding of land as per   

the R & R Policy.

17. It appears  that the controversy   did not set at  rest even  

after  this  judgment  as  writ  petition   No.  48/2004  was  filed  by  the  

respondent-Bheru  Singh  and  others  by  way  of  a  public  interest  

litigation and the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and  

order dated 11.8.2009  which is under challenge herein issuing certain  

directions  quoted  hereinbefore.   As  already  stated,    the  State  of  

Madhya  Pradesh  is  aggrieved  by  some  of  the  directions  recorded  

12

hereinbefore  and  the  oustees-  Bheru  Singh  and  others  also  are  

aggrieved in view of  some other  directions quoted hereinbefore.  As  

such they have also filed an appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 10163 of  

2010.  But  this  contention of  the Respondent-Bheru Singh and Ors.  

who are Petitioners/Appellants in their appeal are common which shall  

be recorded and dealt with later at the appropriate stage.  

18. However,  while  dealing  with  the  submissions  and  

contentions of  learned counsel  for  the Appellant-State of  M.P.,  it  is  

necessary to record the submissions of the counsel for the appellant,  

State of M.P. who, while assailing the impugned directions of the High  

Court,  first  of  all  submitted  that  vague  pleadings  have  been  

incorporated in the writ petition  including  multiple cause of action.    It  

was submitted  that  a reading of  the case of  the respondent-Bheru  

Singh  who  was  petitioner  in  the  High  Court  would  show  that  the  

petitioner challenged 426 different orders passed by the  GRA without  

any factual  basis.   No  factual  details have been laid  down in the  

petition either  by giving facts relating  to each of those cases   or the  

circumstance  under which  the orders were passed.    Commenting  

upon the  contents of  the writ   petition,  it  was pointed out  that  the  

petition is claimed to have been filed on behalf of  several thousand  

persons  but there is no proper affidavit supporting the  petition  of any  

individual on whose behalf   it  is purported to have been filed.  The  

13

petition contains a vague allegation of  non-compliance of R & R Policy  

which is actually  a roving enquiry.    It was submitted at this stage that  

this  PIL   was  liable  to  be  rejected  by  the  High  Court  at  the  very  

threshold  for want of proper pleadings  and material to substantiate  

the averments/allegations contained therein.     

19. However, the learned Judges of the High Court took notice  

of the fact that the Court had to strike a balance between  the interest  

of the parties  in a PIL  and had to take into consideration the pitiable  

conditions of oustees, their poverty, inarticulateness, illiteracy, extent  

of backwardness  and unawareness also.  However, the High Court  

should have taken note of the observation wherein it was  observed  

that in future  it was desirable  that the Court must view  presentation  

of any matter by the NBA with caution and care  insisting  on proper  

pleadings, disclosure of full facts  truly and fairly  and should  insist for  

an affidavit  of some responsible person in support of facts contained  

therein.  It was submitted that in view of this observation, the   petition  

was fit to be dismissed as the same lacked material  particulars being  

completely vague which was not supported  by a proper affidavit  and  

was, therefore, liable to be rejected at the threshold.

20. Learned counsel  then raised the question  of  delay and  

laches  on the part of the petitioner-Bheru Singh  who is respondent  in  

the main appeal  as  it was stated that the writ petition was filed by the  

14

respondent-Bheru Singh  at a time  when the Man Dam had already  

been  completely  constructed.  It was thus an effort to upset a settled  

state of affairs at such a belated stage which has an upsetting effect on  

settled  society.  Such a belated petition was, therefore, liable to be  

rejected on the ground of laches  and delay specially when this issue  

has already been dealt with by the  IIIrd Narmada judgment  which is  

reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639.

21. In so far as the contentions of the counsel for the State of  

Madhya Pradesh in regard to the main directions are concerned, it is  

the  case  of  the  State  of  M.P.  that  the  R  &  R  Policy  prescribes  a  

comprehensive  scheme  as  to  who  is   entitled  for  land   and  

simultaneously how the cost of land to be allotted is recoverable by the  

State.  Clause 3.2(a)  specifically  envisages that  it is only a displaced  

family from whom  more than 25%  of its land have been acquired who  

is  entitled  for  land.   This  loss of  land is  the pre-requisite  to  create  

entitlement.   The  scheme then   continues  under  Clause  5.1  which  

envisages that  the cost  of  acquired land  is to be made out of  the  

compensation payable  for the land which  one has lost.  Thus, if a  

person  does  not  lose  any  land  then  he  is  not  entitled  to  any  

compensation and would not  be  able  to pay for the land for which he  

is not  covered by the R & R Policy.   However,   this does not mean  

that  an adult son who is treated as a separate family is not entitled to  

15

any benefit  in the policy.  He still gets a number of benefits for which a  

family is entitled under Clause 6.1, 7.1 and 8.1 of the R & R Policy.

22. Elaborating on the question involved, it  was next submitted  

that under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition  Act 1894 the adult son  

who  has become major  on or  before  the  date  of  notification under  

Section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act is considered to be a separate  

family and clause 3 of the R & R also  provides for allotment  of land in  

lieu  of  land.   Clause  3.2(a)  provides  for  every  displaced  family  

including major son from whom more than 25% of its land holding is  

acquired in  revenue villages or forest villages shall be entitled to and  

as far as possible the land to the extent of the land acquired from it.  

This loss of land is essential  before one can become entitled to land  

for land from the State Government.  Reiterating the submission, it was  

submitted that as per Clause  3.2(a) of the R & R Policy, adult son will  

be entitled for land as far as possible  only if some  land belonging to  

him as on   date  of the Section 4 notification   under Land Acquisition  

Act, 1894 was actually acquired from him and clause 5 of the R & R  

Policy provides for  recovery of the cost of  allotted land.   

23. Learned counsel  appearing the  appellant-State of Madhya  

Pradesh further invited the attention  of this Court to certain important  

features  of the R & R Policy in order to impress upon  this Court that  

the oustees have been duly compensated  for the acquired land  with  

16

beneficial schemes incorporated therein.  It was stated that clause 5.1  

of the R & R Policy  provides that 50 of the compensation   for the  

acquired  land  was   permitted  to  be  retained  as   initial  instalment  

towards payment of  the cost of the land to be allotted to the oustees.  

Clauses  5.2  and  5.3  further  provided  that  the  balance  cost  of  the  

allotted land will be treated as  interest free land to be recovered within  

20  equal  yearly  instalments  and  clause  5.1  provided  that  if  the  

displaced family did not wish to obtain land in lieu of land and claim full  

payment of the compensation, they could do so but  with a rider that  

this option once exercised, the displaced families could not  lay any  

claim for land afterwards.  It was, therefore,  submitted by the learned  

counsel that if  impugned direction of he High Court  in the judgment  

and order under challenge dated 11.8.2009  directing to allot land to  

each and every major son irrespective of the fact whether any land  

was acquired from them or not, would make the clauses 5.1, 5.2 and  

5.3 of R & R Policy as inoperative.  It was contended that if no land  

was acquired from the adult son  as a separate land holder then how  

would the cost of the land be recovered from them.         

24. Learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh  in order  

to reinforce his submission  on the aforesaid aspects first of all placed  

reliance on the judgment  and order  reported in  (2000)10 SCC 664  

commonly referred to as first Narmada judgment  wherein this Court  

17

(Supreme  Court)  has  held  that  the  rehabilitation  and  resettlement  

packages in the three states were different due to geographical  and  

economic conditions and availability  of  the land.  The States have  

liberalised  their policies and decided to allot land  to adult son and  

daughter over and above   the NWDT Award.   Heavy reliance has  

been placed by the counsel on the judgment of  this Court  reported in  

(2011) 7 SCC 639 referred to as IIIrd Narmada judgment  wherein  this  

Court has examined the R & R Policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh  

and  inter  alia  has  held  that  the  issue  has  to  be  decided  by  strict  

adherence to the amended R & R Policy in view of which all adult sons  

of a displaced family is not entitled for allotment of separate unit of land  

as  it  would  lead  to  absurd  results  and  unjust  enrichment  at  the  

expense of the State exchequer.  The relevant paragraph specifically  

states as follows:

“96. The rehabilitation has to be done to the extent of the  displacement.  The  rehabilitation  is  compensatory  in  nature  with  a  view  to  ensure  that  the  oustee  and  his  family are at least restored to the status that was existing  on  the  date  of  the  commencement  of  the  proceedings  under the 1894 Act. There was no intention on behalf of  the State to have awarded more land treating a major son  to be a separate unit. This would otherwise bring about an  anomaly,  as  is  evident  from  the  chart  that  has  been  gainfully  reproduced  hereinabove.  The  idea  of  rehabilitation was, therefore, not to distribute largesse of  the  State  that  may  reflect  distribution  totally  disproportionate to the extent of the land acquired. The  State has, therefore, rightly resisted this demand of the  writ petitioners and, in our opinion, for the High Court to  

18

presuppose or assume a separate unit for each major son  far  above  the  land  acquired,  was  neither  justified  nor  legally sustainable.”  

25. It  was  submitted  that  the  Supreme  Court   while  further  

examining and scrutinizing  the clauses 3.2, 5.1 and other provisions of  

the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. as also that  allotment of land to  

adult  son  from  whom  no  land  is  acquired,  will  amount  to  unjust  

enrichment which is against the law.

26. In order to add further weight   to the submission, it  was  

submitted that in fact the IIIrd Narmada judgment  (2011) 7 SCC 639  

has examined the issues in detail  after which  it was concluded  that if  

the  interpretation  is  sought  to  be  given   by  the  Narmada  Bachao  

Andolan and the same is accepted,  it would lead to absurd results, for  

instance,   if a family of three joint  khatedars have  3-4 sons  losing  

only 2 hectares of land and each  major son would claim 2 hectares  

separately, then the family would end up getting 26 hectares of land.  It  

was contended   that this was  never the intention  of the R & R Policy  

and  the   conclusion   drawn  by   three   Judge  Bench   cannot  be  

overlooked.  Thus the entire emphasis of the appellant-State of M.P.  is  

on the three Judge Bench of (2011) 7 SC 639  as also other judgments  

reported  in  (2000)  10  SCC  664,  (2005)  4  SCC  32  which  has  

incorporated the NWDT Award.  But it  was also submitted that  the  

19

2005    judgment   interpreting  the  NWDT  Award  which  has  no  

application to the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. in regard to the  

displaced persons of the Man Dam Project.

27. Learned counsel  submitted that in the first place there is,  

in  fact,  no discordant    note  between  the  IInd Narmada judgment  

reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32 and IIIrd Narmada judgment  reported in  

(2011) 7 SCC 639.  In fact,  it  was contended that the IInd Narmada  

judgment  interpreting NWDT Award relates to an inter state project  

rather than R & R Policy of the State of M.P. while the issue before the  

IIIrd Narmada judgment  was interpretation of  the State Policy i.e. R &  

R Policy which   was  not  an issue for  consideration by the Hon’ble  

Judges delivering  the IInd  and IIIrd Narmada judgment  reported in  

(2000) 10 SCC 664 and (2005) 4 SCC 32.  According to the learned  

counsel , the IInd Narmada judgment  contained an inadvertent error as  

it refers only to a particular  paragraph (para 176) of the Ist Narmada  

judgment  reported  in  (2000)  10  SCC 664  without  considering   the  

importance  of  other  paragraphs   at  paragraphs  152  and  156.   In  

paragraph  152,  it  was   categorically   noted  by  the  Ist  Narmada  

judgment  that  all  states except  Madhya Pradesh in  that  case were  

ready  to  give  land  to  major  sons  and  on  this  account  the  Court  

observed  whether  this  inadvertent  error  should  be  allowed  to  

perpetuate  if the policy  states otherwise.

20

28. Placing reliance  on the IIIrd Narmada judgment reported in  

(2011) 7 SCC 639 holding therein that under the R & R Policy  there is  

no entitlement of land for land for major son, it was submitted that this  

finding recorded   by  three Hon’ble Judges Bench  after noticing and  

interpreting the earlier  judgments i.e.  (2000)  10 SCC 664, (2005)  4  

SCC 32 would be binding  on the present Bench  comprising of two  

Hon’ble Judges and hence  the views expressed therein  should hold  

the field  in this appeal/matter also filed by the State of M.P.   It was  

contended that a fresh interpretation of the R & R Policy to the extent  

of  giving   land  to  major  son  would  result  in  a   total  arbitrary  

implementation of the policy  has not been  approved by the Bench of  

three Judges vide  (2011) 7 SCC 639 and in case this Court found that  

there  were  divergence  of   views  in  the  judgment  referred  to  

hereinbefore and relied  upon by the State of M.P., the matter may be  

referred  to  a  larger  bench.   If  this   Hon’ble  Court  comes  to  the  

conclusion that there are divergent views of co-strength bench on the  

issue of the allotment of land to adult son in (2000) 10 SCC 664 Ist  

Narmada Judgment and (2005) 4 SCC 32- IInd Narmada judgment  and  

(2011) 7 SCC 639-IIIrd Narmada judgment.

29. In so far  as the   impugned direction of  the High Court  

concluding  that   value  of  trees    and  wells  could  not  have  been  

deducted  from the  amount  payable  as  SRG,  it  was  submitted  that  

21

compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is to be determined  as  

per Section 23 of the said Act and apart from the  market rate, value of  

the land, the damage sustained  by taking   standing crops or  trees  is  

part  of   compensation  as  also  the  damage  sustained  by  person  

interested on account of  loss of land.  Thus loss of trees and wells is  

part  of  compensation plaid  under  the Land Acquisition  Act  and the  

formula for calculating SRG is given in two Government orders  dated  

31.2.2002 which is a general  order  and dated 7.3.2002 which is a  

specific order for the Man Dam Project.   It was submitted that once  

compensation  payable  under   the  Land  Acquisition  Act  is  to  be  

deducted  then  the  same would  include the complete  compensation  

paid for the land, trees, wells, solatium, interest etc. and, therefore, it   

was submitted  that the finding  of the High  Court  on this issue  is  

liable to be reversed.  Reliance  was also placed on the ratio of the  

decision reported in (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 637  State of  Haryana vs.  

Gurcharan Singh and Anr. wherein this Court  had held that it is well  

settled   law  that  the  Collector  or  the  Court   who  determined  the  

compensation   for  the  land   as  well  as   fruit  bearing  trees  cannot  

determine them separately as the compensation is  in  regard to the  

value  of the acquired  land.

30. Shri  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  counsel  representing  

respondent –Bheuru Singh & Ors. - who was the petitioner in the High  

22

Court  and  are  also  appellant  in  the  connected  appeal,  refuted  the  

contentions  of the counsel for the State of M.P.  and first of all referred  

to the relevant provisions of  R & R Policy  relating to displaced family.   

He has, therefore, extracted the relevant provisions in this regard for  

ready reference which is   as follows:-

            “1.1 (b) Displaced Family--(i) A  family  composed of  displaced  persons  as  defined  above  shall  include  husband, wife  and minor children and other persons  dependent  on  the  head  of  the  family,  eg.  Widowed  mother,  widowed  sister,  unmarried  daughter  or  old  father.  

(ii)   Every son/un-married daughter who has become  major  on  or  before  the  date  of  Notification  under  section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, will be treated as  a separate family.”

3.2 (a) Every displaced family from whom more than  25 percent of its land is acquired in revenue villages or  forest  villages shall  be entitled to the extent  of  land  acquired  from  it,  and  shall  be  allotted  such  land,  subject to provision in 3.2 below.  

(b) A minimum area of 2 ha. of land would be allotted  to  all  the  families  whose  lands  would  be  acquired  irrespective of whether government land is offered or  private land is purchased for  allotment.  Where more  than 2 ha. of land is acquired from a family, it will be  allotted equal and, subject to a ceiling of 8 ha.  

(c)  The  government  will  assist  displaced  families  in  providing  irrigation  by  well/tube-well  or  any  other  method on the land allotted, provided such land is not  already irrigated…”

23

31. Relying on the aforesaid provision it  was contended that  

under the R & R Policy every joint land holder is treated as a displaced  

family and is entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares  of land.  So if there  

are three joint  land holders in a joint land holding  they will  each be  

entitled to a minimum  of 2 hectares of land.  While  explaining this, it   

was stated that if the name of the adult son had been recorded on the  

title as a joint land holder, he would have been entitled to  2 hectares  

of land as a land holder had the acquired land  been partitioned prior to  

acquisition, the adult son whose  family land  held in the name  of the  

head of the family is being acquired and who undisputedly has rights  

on the land  had he been recorded as joint title holder, he would have  

been  entitled  to  a  minimum  of  2  hectares  of  land  each.  It  was,  

therefore,  submitted  that  it  would  be   discriminatory  to  deny  the  

opportunity  to  obtain a viable livelihood after displacement to the adult  

sons who have rights on these lands simply because there was no  

partition due to customary practices.  It  was sought to be explained  

that this is  the tribal area where culturally lands are not partitioned till  

the death of the head of the family.  Thus many of the adults sons   are  

themselves  very old.  It was submitted that in fact para 2.1 of the R &  

R Policy   expressly required that all relevant land records would be  

brought up to date expeditiously for ensuring  adequate compensation  

and allotment of land  to displaced persons.  However,  the same was  

24

never  done.  It  was contended  that  if  the land  records had been  

updated, the adult sons would have been included  in the land records  

as  joint  holders  and  would  have  been  entitled  to  a  minimum of  2  

hectares of land in their own right.    The State Government  in order to  

conclude the matter formulated the provision that every adult son will   

be  treated as a separate family.

32. It was still  further submitted that the vision of the R & R  

Policy that every family dependent on  land facing  force displacement,  

which  has to severe  its link   with family lands  hitherto   relied  on,  

must be provided  a viable land based livelihood on a minimum viable  

land holding 2 hectares of land which would be entirely in consonance  

with  the   socialist  vision  of  the  Constitution  and  the  Fundamental  

Rights  and  Directive  Principles  of  State  Policy.  The  minimum  

entitlement of 2 hectares of land is also in consonance with the  vision  

of  the  planning  process    indicating   national  development   which  

requires both  the  victims and the  beneficiaries  of  such product  to  

become  better  off  from  the  project  and  project  resources.   It  was  

submitted that this Court has also  emphatically   taken the view  that  

the oustees on development projects must be  made better off after  

their displacement at project cost and as per the R & R  Policy  framed  

by the Government  under Article 21 of the Constitution.  It was also  

submitted  that  the  R  &  R  Policy  of   the  Government  of  Madhya  

25

Pradesh requires the allotment  of  land  even to encroachers.   The  

State  of  M.P.    also has programme  for  the allotment   of  land to  

landless SC and ST families.  Thus the well considered provisions  of  

the R & R Policy  which require the allotment  of  a minimum  of  2  

hectares of land  to the adult sons of cultivators whose family land is  

being  acquired as separate families  is a valuable part of the social-

economic programme part designed to meet goals  of the Constitution.  

33. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the  

appellant-State of M.P., Mr. Bhushan submitted that the provisions for  

the treatment of adult sons as a separate family  for the allotment  of a  

minimum of 2 hectares of land is the same under the NWDT Award  

and the R & R Policy  of  the State.   Learned counsel  has placed  

reliance on the IInd Narmada judgment of High Court for the definition  

of  ‘adult  son’ as separate family and allotment of  land reported in  

(2005) 4 SCC 32.  It  was  submitted that  as per the  definition of  

oustee, an oustee means any person who at least  one year prior to  

the publication  of the notification under Section 4 of the Act has been  

ordinarily  residing  or  cultivating  land   or  carrying  on  any  trade,  

occupation  or  calling  or  working  for  gain  in  the  area  likely  to  be  

submerged  permanently  or  temporarily  and the definition  of  family  

includes  husband,  wife  and  minor  children  and  other  persons  

dependent on the head of the family, for example, widowed mother.

26

34. Learned  counsel  for  the   respondent/appellant  in  the  

connected appeal also submitted that  in fact the R & R Policy was  

formulated  by adopting the provisions  of the NWDT Award which may  

be  seen  from  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  dated  9.6.1987  of  the  

Committee of Secretaries which  formulated the R & R Policy.   The  

High Court in the impugned judgment  has also held that the State  

Government  adopted similar definition of displaced family in the R & R  

Policy as is present in the NWDT Award.  It was, therefore, submitted  

that the provisions of the NWDT Award and the R & R Policy  are in  

pari materia    on the basis of which  it has been contended that the  

view  taken  by  the  learned  Judges  in  the  IInd Narmada  judgment  

reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32, adult sons of cultivators are entitled to a  

minimum of  2  hectares  of  land   as  separate  families   wherein  the  

specific   question   was  considered  as  to  whether  adult  sons  of  

cultivators  are entitled  to a minimum of 2 hectares of land  as per the  

NWDT Award.   Learned counsel specifically referred to the question  

which  was considered  in (2005) 4 SCC 32 judgment which is quoted  

as follows:-

“Whether adult sons are entitled  to a minimum of 2  hectares  of  land  as  per   NWDT  Award  and  judgment of this Court?”     

27

35. Learned counsel placed reliance on certain portions of the  

judgment  which  was  follows:-

“59. The  definition  of  family  indisputably  includes  major  sons.  A  plain  reading  of  the  said  definition  clearly  shows  that  even  where  a  major  son  of  the  land-holder  did  not  possess  land  separately,  he  would  be  entitled  to  grant  of  a  separate holding.  

64. One 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  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’  to  an  extent  would  become  obscure.  As  a  major  son  constitutes  ‘separate  family’  within  the  interpretation clause of ‘family’ no meaning  thereto can be given.”  

36. Placing reliance  on the aforesaid portion of the judgment  

of this  Court, it was submitted that this Hon’ble Court has decisively  

interpreted the treatment of  adult sons as separate family and  relying  

on similar provisions for treatment of adult sons  as separate family  

and for allotment of  a minimum of  2 hectares of land  in the NWDT  

Award  and  the  R  &  R  Policy,  the  High  Court   vide  its  impugned  

28

judgment  has rightly held  that the oustees  of the Man Dam Project  

are also entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land as per the R & R  

Policy.  It was submitted that the judgment and order  dated 15.3.2005  

of this Court  was accepted and fully implemented by  an order  of the  

State Government  dated 16.6.2005 by providing benefits  to several  

thousands adults sons  which may be seen from the order of the State  

Government dated 16.6.2005 which states that   it is in compliance of  

judgment  and order  of  this  Hon’ble Court   dated 15.3.2005 holding  

that in the case of cultivators losing more than 25% of the land, the  

adult  sons will be entitled to 2  hectares of land and  while computing  

the SRG for  adult sons, the previous compensation will be taken to be  

zero.

37. It  was  next  contended   on  behalf  of  the  

oustees/Respondents  that  in  this  case,  the  State  has relied on  the  

reasonings of the judgment and order of a three Member Bench dated  

11.5.2011 reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 referred to as IIIrd Narmada  

judgment in order to challenge the finding of the judgment and order  

dated  11.8.2009  reported  in  (2005)  4  SCC  32  i.e.  IInd Narmada  

judgment   with  regard to  land allotment  to  adult  sons which  is  not  

legally permissible and in case this court finds conflicting judgment the  

matter may be referred to a Larger Bench.         

29

38. While considering the rival submissions of the counsel for  

the contesting parties in both the appeals, it is manifestly clear  that the  

principal contentious issue between the State of Madhya Pradesh  and  

the displaced persons/oustees is in regard  to the claim of land for  

each major son of the land holders family as according to the oustees,  

the definition of displaced family  in paragraph 1(b) of the R & R Policy  

discloses that every son who has become major on or before  the  date  

of  notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  will  be  

treated as a separate family.  As already noted, this has given rise  to  

several rounds of litigation  in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  due  

to which  three judgments have been delivered by this Court   and for  

facility  of  reference  they  have  been  termed  as  Narmada  Bachao  

Andolan  Ist,   Narmada  Bacaho  Andolan  IInd and  Narmada  Bachao  

Andolan IIIrd judgments.  However, in Narmada Bachoa Andolan I, the  

question of  entitlement of land  in favour of each major son of the  

family  was  neither  considered  but  Narmada  Bachao  Andolan  II  

reported  in  (2005)  4  SCC  32,  the   question   clearly  came  up  for  

consideration  regarding   entitlement  of  land  by  major  sons  which  

according  to  the  learned  three  Judge  Bench   indisputably  includes  

major sons in view of the definition of family.  A three Judge Bench of  

this Court  in the said matter observed that even on a plain  reading of  

the definition,  it clearly  shows that even where a major son of the land  

30

holder did not possess land separately,  he would be entitled  to grant  

of  separate holding.  It was held  that  the  definition  of ‘family’ has to  

be read  along with   that of ‘ oustee’ and it was noted that ‘outsee  

family’ and ‘displaced family’     have  interchangeably been  used  in  

the award.  It was, therefore,  observed that they  thus carry  the same  

meaning.  This Court also took notice of paragraph 152  of the main  

judgment   i.e.  Naramda Bachao Andolan I  judgment   wherein   this  

Court  noticed that every affected family must be allotted land, house,  

plot and other amenities and this was  in terms of the  tribunal’s award  

wherein it was held that the sons   who had become major  on or  prior  

to the issuance of notification of  Land Acquisition Act  were entitled to  

be allotted land  and since the interpretation clause  used an inclusive  

definition, it would  be expansive in nature.  It was, therefore, held that  

as follows:

“Once major son comes  within the purview of the  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  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  to  an  extent   become  obscure.   As  a  major  son  constitutes  “separate  family” within the interpretation clause of “family”, no  meaning  thereto  can  be  given.………The  court  

31

further observed that  the award provided that every  displaced family  whose 25% or more agricultural  land holding hs been acquired , shall be entitled to  be  allotted   irrigable  land  to  the   extent  of  land  acquired subject  to prescribed ceiling of the State  with a minimum of 2 hectares of land.”

39. Thus  in  view of  this  judgment   the  respondent  oustees  

could have  approached the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) for  

allotment of land in terms of the judgment if they felt that  the GRA was  

not examining the  grievance  in the light of the law  laid down by this  

Court in the IInd Narmada Judgment  (2005) 4 SCC 32.   However, the  

oustees respondents Bheru Singh  and others instead of approaching  

the G.R.A. approached the High court by way of a writ  petition No.  

48/2004 in  which judgment was delivered by the Division Bench on  

11.8.2009 out of which these appeals arise and in this judgment  the  

learned Judges followed the judgment  and order of the IInd Narmada  

Bachao  Andolan  referred  to  hereinabove  as  the  subsequent  III rd  

judgment of 2011 (Supra) had not been delivered by that time. Hence  

the High Court was pleased to hold vide the impugned judgment that  

although  there has been substantial  compliance of  R & R  Policy  

which provides for allotment  of  agricultural land government or private  

to the displaced family and there is no violation of  fundamental right  

to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, it   was  

further pleased to direct  that every  son who had become major on or  

32

before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition  

Act but who was part of their family from whom land had been acquired  

will  be treated as a separate displaced family and would be allotted  

agricultural land in accordance with paragraph 3 and 5 of the R & R  

Policy  for the Man Dam Project and in case he does not opt land for  

land  in accordance with paragraph 5 of the R & R Policy, he will be  

paid   Special  Rehabilitation  Grant  (SRG)   in  addition  to  the  

compensation under the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with the  

order dated 7.3.2002 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh  Narmada  

Valley  Development Authority by the respondents within four months  

from that date.

40. As already stated, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the  

oustee respondents  Nos. 1 & 2  along with social activist respondent  

No.3 filed separate special leave petition  in this Court on 9.11.2009  

and 1.2.2010.  But it  appears that in the meantime, another appeal  

had been entertained by this Court  bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 2115-

2116/2011 arising out of  an interim order passed by the High Court of  

Madhya  Pradesh  in  writ  petition  No.4457/2007  entitled  Narmada  

Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh  wherein the High Court  

as an interim measure had issued direction  inter alia     for allotment  

of  agricultural  land   to  the  displaced   persons  in  lieu  of  the  land  

acquired for the construction of the dam in terms of the Rehabilitation  

33

and Resettlement Policy as amended on  3.7.2003.  The High Court  

direction applied even to those oustees who had already withdrawn the  

compensation  if such oustees opted for such land and refund 50% of  

the compensation amount received by them.  The balance cost of the  

allotted land was to be deposited by the allottee in 20 equal yearly  

instalments as per clause 5.3 of the R & R Policy and it further directed  

to treat  a major son of the family  whose land had been acquired as a  

separate family for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land.  During  

the pendency of the appeals of the State of Madhya Pradesh and  the  

respondents, the judgment and order  was delivered by a Bench of  

three Judges of this Court wherein the question of  entitlement of each  

major son of a displaced family was taken into consideration  and it   

was observed   therein that the rehabilitation  has to  be done  to the  

extent  of the displacement.  It was further held that rehabilitation was  

compensatory  in nature with a view to ensure that the oustee and his  

family  are at least restored to the status  that was existing  on the date  

of commencement of  the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894.  There was no intention  on behalf of the State to have awarded  

more land  treating a major son to be a separate unit.  It was further  

observed that the idea of rehabilitation was not to distribute largesse  

of the State  that may reflect distribution of total disproportionate to the  

extent of land acquired  and therefore, the State had rightly registered  

34

this demand of the oustee- writ petitioners directing a separate unit for  

each major son  for  the above land acquired, was neither justified nor  

legally permissible.  It was, therefore,  held that in effect   the major  

son would not be entitled   to anything  additional as his separate share  

in  the  original  holding  and  it  will  not  get  enhanced  by  the  fiction  

definition   as  stated  in  the  impugned  judgment.   The  major  sons,  

however,  would  be entitled to  his  share in  the area which  is  to  be  

allotted  to the tenure holder on rehabilitation in case he is entitled to  

such share in the land applicable to the particular State.

41. On  perusal of the ratio of the two decisions of this  Court  

referred to hereinabove viz. 2005 (4) SCC 32 and (2011) 7 SCC 639,  

they undoubtedly appear to be in conflict with each other in regard to  

the  claim of  share  by  each  major  son  of  the  family  of  land  holder  

whose  land  has  been  acquired.   This  Court,  therefore,  is  clearly  

confronted with two conflicting views on the claim of entitlement of a  

major son for a separate share in the land holders family and in view of  

this it would have been a fit case for reference  of this matter before a  

Constitution Bench of 5 Judges for determination of the question  as to  

whether  all major sons of a displaced family  would be entitled to 2  

hectares of land in view of the R & R Policy of the State of M.P.    

42. But on a careful consideration of the matter, it is manifestly  

clear that  the dispute between the State of  M.P.  and the displaced  

35

family on the question of entitlement of a major son do not arise out of  

a statute like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Hindu Succession  

Act or Land Ceiling Act or any other similar Act in order to treat the  

issue  as  the  purely  a  legal  controversy  giving  rise  to  a  conflicting  

situation regarding the entitlement of land to a major son of a family  

which would give rise for determination of the question as to whether  

all major sons of the land holders family who might be constituting joint  

family  would  be  entitled  to  2  hectares  of  land  separately  or  only  

through  the  main  land  holder  of  a  displaced  family  in  order  to  be  

entitled  to  2  hectares of  land arising out  of  a  Policy  decision.  This  

marathon exercise that have been done giving rise to repeated rounds  

of litigation for determination of the question as to whether major sons  

would be included in the definition of the displaced family or not in our  

view is not really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provision  

which  needs  to  be  addressed  since  the  entire  issue  is  merely  a  

question which arises out of a policy decision of the Government of  

M.P. and at the most would be confined to interpretation of the R & R  

Policy formulated by the State of M.P.    We, therefore, refrain from  

referring this question of entitlement of major son to a separate holding  

to a larger Bench as it needs to be highlighted that this controversy  

arises out of Policy decision and has clearly not emerged from any  

ambiguity in the Land Acquisition Act or any statute or an Act having a  

36

bearing in  future on other  similar  controversy so as to refer  it  to  a  

Constitution Bench of this Court.   

43. Thus,  when  the  claim  or  entitlement  of  land  is  based  

exclusively on a Policy decision of the Government of M.P. which have  

been incorporated in the R & R Policy, the entitlement clearly would be  

based strictly on the Policy decision formulated by the Government of  

M.P. which clearly lays down as follows:

“24(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…………..”

44. This policy holds a displaced family entitled to 2 hectares of  

land but it  further  envisages actual displacement from the acquired  

land which is 25% meaning thereby that only such displaced family  

from whom more than  25% of  its  land holding has been acquired  

would be entitled for compensation of 2 hectares of land from whom  

land has been acquired and this  displacement  from land would  not  

merely be notional.   The R & R policy unequivocally lays down its  

entire emphasis on acquisition of land  from a displaced family and that  

displacement  also has to be 25% of the land acquired from the family  

37

by the Government.   Thus even if  the displaced family had several  

major sons, allotment on account of acquisition to each major son do  

not arise in terms of the policy.  Even at the risk of  repetition it needs  

to be highlighted that when there has been no acquisition from each  

major son of the family, the question  of allotment of  land to all major  

sons of the family would be clearly contrary to the provision of the R &  

R Policy.  The entire  right of the respondent/oustee  in this litigation  

flows from the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. and it is crystal clear  

that the redeeming  feature of the policy is acquisition of 25%  land of  

the  displaced  family.   Therefore,  even  if  the  displaced  family  

constituted of several major sons, the acquisition of 25% of land from  

each major son is completely missing, and, therefore,  we do not see  

any reason as to why  we should allow the parties to be bogged down  

into further litigation for determination of the question as to whether  all   

major sons of a displaced family are entitled to a separate unit of 2  

hectares of land or only the land holder of the displaced family would  

be entitled.   Hence, the direction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  

vide its impugned judgment for allotment of land to each major son of  

the  displaced family needs to be overturned.

45. There is yet  another  reason for  us for  disapproving the  

direction of the High Court as  the High Court, in our view, was not  

justified  in  entertaining   a  writ  petition  by  way   of  public  interest  

38

litigation when the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  had already dealt  

with  the  question  against  which  the  appeal  also  travelled  upto  this  

Court and was seized of other writ petitions on the question.  In regard  

to the above question,  we take note of  a decision of  this Court   in  

Joydeep  Mukharjee vs.  State  of  West  Bengal &  Ors.,  reported  in  

(2011) 2 SCC 706 wherein this Court  had been pleased to hold that  

the jurisdiction even of the Supreme Court:  

“in a public interest litigation cannot be pressed into  service  where  matters  have  already  been  completely   and  effectively  adjudicated  upon  not  only in individual petitions but even in writ petitions  raising   the  larger  question  as  was  raised  in  the  earlier writ petition.”  

The learned Judges have been pleased to hold that:  

principles of finality and fairness demand that there  should be an end  to  litigation and it  is  in  public  interest   that  issues   settled  by  judgment  of  the  court  which  have  attained  finality  should  not  be  permitted  to be re-agitated  all over again.  

46. Taking  note  of  the  aforesaid  observation  fraught  with  

wisdom, we are of  the view that  the High Court  was not correct  in  

entertaining a writ petition all over again by way of a Public Interest  

Litigation  when the question of implementation of   R & R Policy  had  

been considered  and decided  by the High  Court of Madhya Pradesh  

earlier giving rise to  appeals up to this Court.    Besides this, the High  

Court  in the impugned judgment  itself has laid down  that there had  

39

been substantial compliance of the R & R Policy  of the Government of  

M.P. and yet  it  was pleased to direct the respondent-State/appellant  

herein to consider the question of allotment of 2 hectares of land to  

each major son of a displaced family overlooking the fact that if each  

major son of the displaced family had not been separately deprived of  

25% of the acquired land, then even as per the Policy, they  were not  

entitled  to  2  hectares  of  land.   In  that  view of  the  matter  also the  

direction of the High Court travels beyond the scope of R & R Policy.  

The High Court in any view had no reason to expand the scope of R &  

R Policy by directing  the State of M.P. to allot land to each of the  

displaced family.   

47. However, we are conscious of the fact that in the process  

of allotment, it is quite possible  that some of the oustees might have  

been  deprived of the land who were separately  holding the acquired  

land.  But in order to ensure effective implementation, there is already  

a Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) and if the oustees have any  

grievance in regard to  non-implementation of the R & R Policy in so  

far as their entitlement as per the policy is concerned, they would be  

free to move the GRA  for redressal of their  grievance.  But a blanket  

direction  as given out by the High Court  to allot land to  each major  

son of a displaced family without any averment  to the effect that they  

were deprived  of 25% of acquired  land separately, the plea  that the  

40

State of M.P. should consider their   grievance and allot them  land  

appears to be  contrary to the R & R Policy.  Acquisition of 25% of land  

is a condition precedent to become eligible for   allotment of 2 hectares  

of  land.   We,  therefore,  feel  the  need  to clarify  that  we  have  not  

entered into  the area of determination of the question  as to whether   

major son of a family  is entitled to a separate unit or not as in our view  

even if  we were  to  follows (2005) 4 SCC 32 and were to hold  that   

each major son of a displaced family  is entitled to a separate unit  of   

compensatory land, deprivation  of 25%  of land from them is totally  

missing and if that is so, we fail to understand  as to how we can  allow  

the  respondents to reopen this question after four years of  revision of  

R & R Policy.  Learned counsel for the respondent  Bheru Singh, no  

doubt, had submitted that this Court had to  take into consideration the  

indigent status of the affected parties.  But when a social activist takes  

up  the   cause   for  the  oustees,  it  is  expected  of  them  to  take  a  

balanced view of the cause raised on behalf of the  affected party in  

the light  of the  policy  which is formulated and made effective  by the  

State authorities. We undoubtedly also appreciate the laudable effort  

made by the social activist taking up the cause for the rehabilitation of  

the oustees but in the process we are under constraint as we cannot  

overlook the practical fall out/consequences by allowing them to take  

up the cause of  the oustees oblivious  of  its  consequence  or  the  

41

administrative fall  out since a cause cannot be allowed to be raised  

incessantly  by indulging  in multiplicity of proceedings  which at times  

do  more  harm  to  the  cause  than  seek  cure  for  the  misery  of  the  

affected parties.  In fact, in our view, if anyone concerned including an  

activist  genuinely and bona fide feels  that  full  justice  has not  been  

done to the cause they raised would do well  to use their effort  and  

good  offices  by  persuading  the  administrative  machinery  with  the  

assistance, the leadership for rectifying the policy decision  and getting  

the matter clarified rather than travelling to the court by filing one writ  

petition after the other unsettling the settled position by way of fresh  

round of litigation in the form of Public Interest Litigation.

48. However, in view of the meticulous analysis of the R & R  

Policy in the instant matter in the light of the statement of  the counsel  

for the parties as also the decisions relied upon by them, we are of the  

view that the direction of the High Court in spite of   its finding  that R &  

R Policy  has been substantially  complied,   has gone beyond  the  

ambit  of  the R & R Policy  and has generated a controversy as to  

whether all major sons of a displaced family are entitled to  a separate  

unit  of  land  or  not  under  the  R  &  R  Policy  which  has  clearly  laid  

emphasis on the fact    that  only those displaced families would  be  

entitled  to   2  hectares  of  land   from whom 25% of  their  separate  

holding of land had been acquired which inference in our view is the  

42

only  inference  which  can  reasonably  be  drawn  from  the  relevant  

provision of the R & R Policy.   

49. However, the counsel for the respondent/appellant Bheru  

Singh and others have given out large number of factual details stating  

that  the  GRA  has  committed  grave  errors  while  dealing  with  the  

representation and grievance of the oustees which is not possible for  

this Court to examine nor it lies within the ambit and scope of Article  

136  of  the  Constitution.   Nevertheless,  we  find  substance  in  the  

argument advanced that the oustees/displaced persons come from the  

weak and vulnerable tribal population whose plea may get ignored or  

are not  properly addressed. Hence for  this purpose and in order to  

impart  full  justice  to  the  cause  in  terms of  the  R  &  R  Policy,  it  is  

desirable that the State Government may constitute an appellate forum  

where the aggrieved party may challenge the decision of the GRA in  

case there is any justifiable reason to do so.  This appellate forum in  

our  view  should  include  a  sitting  or  retired  District  Judge  and  an  

administrative member under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge of  

the High Court which will oversee whether the R & R Policy has been  

effectively  and accurately  implemented and whether  the SRG have  

been properly distributed in the light  of  the grievance raised by the  

displaced persons.  This appellate forum in our view appears to be  

essential  in order to supervise and oversee by way of  an appellate  

43

forum and hear the grievance of the affected displaced persons arising  

out of implementation of the R & R Policy and SRG as also to ventilate  

the grievances  of  affected persons.   However,  this  appellate  forum  

shall not enter into any question relating to interpretation of the R & R  

Policy but  by and large examine whether  the benefit  of  the R & R  

Policy has been allowed to be availed by the oustees or not. In effect it  

would  confine  itself  to  the  questions  relating  to  compliance  of  the  

R & R Policy and distribution of Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) in  

terms of the provisions enumerated therein.  

50. As a consequence of the above analysis, deliberation and  

consideration,  the  appeal  arising  out  of  special  leave  petition(c)  

No.30685/09 of the State of Madhya Pradesh stands allowed and the  

appeal  arising  out  of   special  leave  petition  (c)  10163/2010  of  the  

oustees  is  disposed  of  with  liberty  to  the  respondents-oustees  to  

approach the GRA or the Appellate Forum of GRA in case they have  

been deprived of  adequate compensation or  benefit  in  any manner  

which is not in consonance with the R & R Policy.  We further grant  

liberty to the respondents including the social activist-Respondent No.3  

to take up the matter before the Government of M.P. for rectification or  

further amendment of the Policy  in case they are able to establish and  

make out a case that the revision of R & R Policy 2003 still  further  

requires rectification or improvement as there can be no limitation of  

44

time  for reviewing or reframing a Policy decision if it has to serve the  

cause of eradicating human suffering specially if it has emerged as a  

consequence of the state activity like the land acquisition where the  

affected parties lost their home and cultivable land.   However, under  

the circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs.   

……………………………..J. (Asok Kumar Ganguly)

……………………………..J. (Gyan Sudha Misra)  

New Delhi February 01, 2012

45