NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 22 September 2022

1. The Miscellaneous Application for clarification/modification hasbeen 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/Emodification, it is necessary to extract the relief which is specificallysought, at this stage:

“a) Clarify/Modify that the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by thisHon’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,Fjudgments of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2000(10) SCC 664and 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 islosing, subject to maximum for 8 ha of irrigable/cultivable land;”

3. A brief history of the dispute is set out hereafter.G

4. On 12 December 1979, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal[1]rendered its final order and decision. Among the issues which weredealt with by the Tribunal was the issue pertaining to resettlement andrehabilitation of project affected families. Sub-Clause IV(7) of ClauseXI (Directions Regarding Submergence Land Acquisition and H

Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons) provides for the allotment ofagricultural lands to every displaced family. Clause IV(7) is extractedbelow :

“IV(7): Allotment of Agricultural Lands : Every displaced familyfrom whom more than 25% of its land holding is acquired shall beentitled to and be allotted irrigable land to the extent of land acquiredfrom it subject to the prescribed ceiling in the state concerned anda minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres) per family, the irrigation facilitiesbeing provided by the State in whose territory the allotted land issituated : This land shall be transferred to the oustee family if itagrees to take it. The price charged for it would be as mutuallyagreed between Gujarat and the concerned State. Of the price tobe paid for the land a sum equal to 50% of the compensationpayable to the oustee family for the land acquired from it will beset off as an initial instalment of payment. The balance cost of theallotted land shall be recovered from the allottee in 20 yearlyinstalments free of interest. Where land is allotted in MadhyaPradesh or Maharashtra, Gujarat having paid for it vide ClauseIV(6)(i) supra, all recoveries for the allotted land shall be creditedto Gujarat.”

5. The above extract indicates that the entitlement for the allotmentof agricultural land for a displaced family from whom more than 25 percent of the landholding was acquired was in the following terms:

(i) Allotment of irrigable land to the extent of land acquired fromthe family;

(ii) Subject to the prescribed ceiling in the state concerned; and

(iii) A minimum of two hectares (five acres) to be allotted perfamily.

6. The rest of the provisions which have been extracted abovedeal with the manner in which the price would be adjusted or, as thecase may be, paid from the compensation payable to the ‘oustee’ families.

7. In September 1989, the State of Madhya Pradesh formulated aResettlement and Rehabilitation Policy[2]. Clause 3.2 of the R&R Policywas in the following terms:

1 “Tribunal”

2 “R&R Policy”

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A“3 Allotment of Agricultural Land:

[…]

3.2 Without taking care of it that whether the land for allotment isgovernment land or the purchased land is personal land, 2 hectaresof land shall be allotted to those entitled oustee families whoseBagricultural land has been acquired. If the acquired land is of morethan 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 than8 hectares.”

8. Hence, R&R Policy stipulated that two hectares of land wouldCbe allotted to ‘oustee’ families whose lands were acquired. However, ifmore than two hectares of land was acquired, the same would be allottedsubject to a maximum of eight hectares.

9. On 30 March 2000, the Narmada Valley DevelopmentDepartment issued an order, inter alia, for constituting a GrievanceDRedressal Authority[3] for resolving the grievances of the project affectedfamilies of the Sardar Sarovar Project resettled in Madhya Pradesh.

10. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India[4], this Courtheld that the Tribunal’s award would be final and binding.

11. An order was passed by the Court of the Land AcquisitionEOfficer, Sardar Sarovar Project in the case of the applicant indicatingthat the land which was acquired was 4.293 hectares and determiningthe compensation payable at Rs 5,48,072.

12. On 26 December 2005, the Resettlement Officer issued acommunication to the applicant again reiterating the rehabilitation packageFwhich would be made available to the applicant in lieu of the acquisitionof 4.293 hectares of land which was acquired by the Narmada ValleyDevelopment Authority. By another communication of the same date,the applicant was informed that in compliance with the order dated 15March 2005 passed by the Supreme Court, the applicant would be entitledGto the allotment of 4.293 hectares of agricultural land. The Action TakenReport of the Resettlement Officer of December 2005 indicates that:

(i) The total land holding of the applicant was 7.741 hectares; 3 “GRA”H4 (2000) 10 SCC 664

(ii) The area of the affected land was 4.293 hectares; A

(iii) The affected land was 55% of the total holding;

(iv) The total compensation payable was Rs 5,48,072; and

(v) An area of 4.293 hectares of land was allotted to theapplicant in Village Talwada of Tehsil Dhaar.

B

13. On 30 January 2006, the applicant submitted a representationto the Settlement Officer stating that the land which was proposed to beallotted to her was Charnoi land, which was not cultivable.

14. On 8 February 2017, a Bench of three-Judges of this Courtheard a batch of IAs arising in Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union ofIndia[5]. The Court noted that it was carrying out the exercise to arrive atan equitable settlement for the rehabilitation of the project affectedfamilies, consequent upon the implementation of the Sardar SarovarProject. The factual narration in the text of the order indicates thefollowing position:

C

D

(i) Total number of project affected families to whom therehabilitation package was to be offered – 4998;

(ii) Out of (i) above, 4774 families had opted for the SpecialRehabilitation Package in terms of which they would acceptcash payment as compensation;E

(iii) Out of (ii) above, 4264 families had accepted both theinstalments as compensation and, hence, would not beentitled to further compensation;

(iv) Out of those who had opted for the Special RehabilitationPackage, 386 families were paid the first instalment, butnot the second instalment; F

(v) In addition to (iv) above, 120 families had not accepted anycompensation whatsoever;

(vi) In addition to (iv) and (v) above, 4 families had been engagedin litigation on the compensation payable; G

(vii) A total of 510 project affected families [(iv)+(v)+(vi)] werestill entitled to compensation as they had not been paid fullcompensation; 5 Writ Petition (Civil) No 328 of 2002

A(viii) 224 families had sought land in lieu of land and not cashpayment;

(ix) Out of (viii) above, 53 families had accepted the land withoutany objection; and

(x) The remaining 171 families had not been compensated evenBthough they were project affected families.

15. Based on the above factual position, the Court noted that atotal of 681 families (510 projected affected families who had originallyopted for the Special Rehabilitation Package and 171 families who hadclaimed land in lieu of land) remained to be compensated. The CourtCnoted that the figures in regard to the number of families who had beencompensated and who remained to be compensated were tentative innature. 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 applicantswhich are reflected in paragraph 6 of the order, which is reproducedbelow:D

“6. During the course of our deliberations, it came to be acceptedat one stage, that compensation to these 681 families should bedetermined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.However, based on the suggestions made at the behest of theElearned counsel for the applicants, that the land value in the vicinityranges from Rupees fifteen lakhs per hectare, to Rupees eightylakhs per hectare, we were of the view, that it would be moreappropriate to finally determine the compensation, here and now.The average suggested payment at the behest of the learnedcounsel for the applicants would be in the range of Rupees thirtyFlakhs per hectare, and as such, every affected family would beentitled to approximately, Rupees sixty lakhs, in terms of theirentitlement (for two hectares of land) as compensation. Mr. MukulRohatgi, learned Attorney General for India suggested, that theagreed figure be, fixed at Rupees forty five lakhs, in lieu of twoGhectares of land to which they are entitled, and that, the matter beconcluded here and now itself.”

16. The directions which the Court issued after hearing the abovesubmissions are set out in paragraph 7, which is extracted below:

“7. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the suggestionsHmade at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are satisfied in directing the concerned authority, to paycompensation to the 681 ‘project affected families’, who haveyet to receive compensation, and who have been fully describedabove, at the rate of Rupees sixty lakhs per family, as a matter offull and final settlement. An undertaking in this behalf should beobtained, before the amount of compensation is released.”

17. Besides the above directions, the Court also noted that about1,358 project affected families were found to have been duped, asindicated in the report of a Commission of Enquiry described as theJustice S S Jha Commission. The Court directed the authorities to paythese 1,358 project affected families a sum of Rs 15 lakhs per family.Eventually, all the connected petitions were disposed of in the aboveterms.

18. In paragraphs 12 to 16 of the order dated 8 February 2017,the Court finally concluded the controversy in the exercise of itsjurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The concludingparagraphs of the order of this Court read as follows:

“12. All connected petitions/applications are disposed of in theabove terms. Payment in consonance with the instant order, (tothe 681 ‘project affected families’, referred to above) by theconcerned State Government shall first be released to the NarmadaValley Development Authority (for short ‘NVDA’), which in turnshall deposit the compensation payable to the 681 ‘project affectedfamilies’, in the account of the Grievance Redressal Authority,within two months from today. The above amount shall positivelybe released, to the concerned 681 project affected families, withinone month thereafter. The same procedure is directed to befollowed with respect to the 1358 project affected families, whichare stated to have been duped.

13. All the occupants including all the ‘project affected families’shall vacate the submergence area under reference, on or before31.07.2017, and in case there are individuals in the submergencearea, after the aforesaid deposit has been made into the accountof the Grievance Redressal Authority, after 31.07.2017, it shall beopen to the State Government to remove all such individualsforcibly.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A14. The order passed hereinabove, is exclusively directed towardsthe resettlement and rehabilitation of the ‘project affected families’,in the State of Madhya Pradesh. We hereby direct the States ofGujarat and Maharashtra to conclude all the commutedresettlement and rehabilitation activities, in the respective States,within three months from today.B

15. In view of the consolidated order passed by us today, all pendinglitigations, civil and criminal, emerging out of the recommendationsmade by the Jha Commission, in the report dated January, 2016,shall come to an end.

C16. The instant order has been passed by us in exercise of ourjurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and withthe tacit consent of the Union of India (and the concerned StateGovernments), and shall not ever be treated as a precedent, or becited for similar claims for compensation.”

D19. Following the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017, theGRA passed an order in March 2017 intimating the applicant that interms of the order of this Court she was eligible to receive a final paymentof Rs 60 lakhs after adjusting the payment which was made to her earlier.

20. The applicant submitted a representation on 11 May 2017 toEthe GRA. The applicant claimed that since her entitlement was for theallotment of 4.293 hectares of agricultural land, she would be entitled toreceive compensation of Rs 1,28,79,000 equivalent to the area of theland. In other words, the applicant submitted that the quantum of Rs 60lakhs which was determined in the order of this Court dated 8 February2017 was on the basis of the land holding of two hectares and would notFrepresent the full entitlement of the applicant. The GRA rejected theclaim of the applicant on 22 May 2017, which led to the institution ofWrit Petition (Civil) No 16369 of 2017. The specific reliefs which weresought in the writ petition included the following:

“(i) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari orGother appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated22.05.2017 passed by the Learned GRA, being contrary to theNWDTA, R&R Policy, Action Plan and Judgments of the Hon’bleSupreme Court.

(ii) Direct the respondents to make payment of compensation atHthe rate of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) per hectare for the 4.293 hact. of land acquired from the petitioner as per theSupreme Court’s order dated 08.02.2017.

(iii) Direct the respondents to pay an additional amount ofRs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for its failure tocomply with the directions of the Apex Court dated 08.02.2017.”

21. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradeshdismissed the writ petition by an order dated 29 November 2017. Beforethe High Court, the applicant sought to rely on the provisions containedin the Award of 1979. The High Court rejected the writ petition, holdingthat in view of the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017, the GRAhad correctly disallowed the claim and that the entitlement of the applicantwas Rs 60 lakhs and no more.

22. The order of the High Court was sought to be questioned in aSpecial Leave Petition[6] before this Court. On 19 February 2018, theSpecial Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of thefollowing order:

“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after somearguments, seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitionand states that he will move the Court for review/clarification/modification of order dated 8.2.2017 in WP(C) no. 328/2002(Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors.).Permission is granted. The special leave petition is accordinglydismissed as withdrawn.”

23. An application for clarification/modification of the order dated8 February 2017 has been filed.

24. Mr Sanjay Parikh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of theapplicant, submitted that in terms of the Tribunal’s Award of 12 December1979, the entitlement of the applicant was for the allotment of 4.293hectares of land. Hence, it is urged that while the applicant had optedfor land in lieu of land in terms of the Tribunal’s Award, she hadrepresented that the land which was allotted was uncultivable. In thisbackdrop, the submission of senior counsel is that the order of this Courtdated 8 February 2017 which provided an equitable resolution of theclaims of the project affected families computed a payment of Rs 60lakhs per family on the basis of an average rate of Rs 30 lakhs per A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Ahectare and with the holding of two hectares. Senior counsel submittedthat while the applicant has no dispute about the compensation whichhas been fixed, a proper reading of the order of this Court would indicatethat the compensation to which persons such as the applicant are entitledwould have to be pegged at Rs 30 lakhs per hectare and since the applicantwas entitled to the allotment of 4.293 hectares, the actual compensationBwould work out to approximately Rs 1.28 crores and not Rs 60 lakhswhich has been offered in pursuance of the order dated 8 February2017.

25. Opposing these submissions, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, AdditionalSolicitor General, has urged that the order of this Court dated 8 FebruaryC2017 was passed in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 ofthe Constitution. Moreover, paragraph 7 of the order of this Court clearlyindicates that a total quantum of Rs 60 lakhs per family was determinedas being payable to 681 project affected families who were yet to receivecompensation as a matter of full and final settlement. The AdditionalDSolicitor General submitted that what is recorded in paragraph 6 of theorder of this Court are the submissions during the course of thedeliberations that took place in court. Hence, it was urged that once thefinal settlement package has been determined at Rs 60 lakhs per familyand an order has been passed in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article

142, a clarification/ modification of the order cannot be sought since, inEsubstance, this would amount to a substantive review of the order of thisCourt.

26. The crux of the issue which falls for decision is whether thedirections which are contained in the order of this Court dated 8 February2017 are susceptible to either a clarification or modification to the effectFthat the applicant should be granted compensation at the rate of Rs 30lakhs per hectare for the entirety of the land holding of 4.293 hectares towhich she had been found to be entitled for the allotment of agriculturalland. There is no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the Awardof the Tribunal dated 12 December 1979, the applicant had opted for theallotment of agricultural land in lieu of the acquisition of a portion of theGland holding. The order of this Court dated 8 February 2017 representeda comprehensive determination of the compensation which would bepayable to those families who were yet to receive compensation eitherin full or in part. The Court noted that 681 project affected families werestill to receive compensation either in full or in part. The Court specificallyHnoted in paragraph 6 of the order extracted above that it was of the view that it would be more appropriate “to finally determine the compensation,here and now”. On the one hand, counsel for the applicants had indicatedthat the land value would be in the range between Rs 15 lakhs and Rs 80lakhs per hectare. On the other hand, the Attorney General for Indiasuggested that the value of the land should be pegged at Rs 45 lakhs inlieu of two hectares of land.

27. Based on the rival submissions, the Court held that 681 projectaffected families who were yet to receive compensation would be paidan amount at the rate of Rs 60 lakhs per family as a matter of full andfinal settlement. In other words, the quantum of Rs 60 lakhs per familyrepresented a comprehensive settlement package. That package isincapable of being broken down into a per hectare determination. Oncethe Court had arrived at a final figure of Rs 60 lakhs per family recordingthat this would be in full and final settlement and directions were issuedin the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142, it is impermissiblefor the applicant to claim any amount in excess of that determination.There is no doubt about the legal position that the Award of the Tribunalis final and binding as submitted by the counsel on behalf of the applicant.At the same time, it is necessary to note that though the Award of theTribunal had attained finality, it had given rise to litigation and diverseapplications were pending before this Court. Hence, when this Courtpassed the order dated 8 February 2017 it was in order to resolve thecontroversy once and for all.

28. The Court also had before it 1358 project affected familieswho had been duped and who had not actually received any compensationat all. It is in this backdrop that the Court passed a consolidated ordercovering all claims and directed that in view of its order, all pendinglitigation, civil and criminal, arising out of the recommendations containedin the report of the Justice S S Jha Commission dated January 2016,would come to an end. The Court observed that the order applied to theresettlement and rehabilitation of project affected families in the Stateof Madhya Pradesh, but the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra wouldalso conclude all the resettlement and rehabilitation activities within threemonths from the date of the order. The settlement package of Rs 60lakhs per family represents a final compensation package which wasdirected to be paid in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 142. Paragraph 7 of the order of this Court does not admit of anyambiguity. In any event, the order of this Court and the directions whichhave been issued under Article 142 are not susceptible of being clarified A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aor modified any further in a Miscellaneous Application of the nature thathas been placed before this Court. Insofar as the applicant is concerned,she had challenged the order of GRA before the High Court. The HighCourt rejected the writ petition on the basis of a correct interpretation ofthe order of this Court dated 8 February 2017.

B29. For the above reasons, we are of the view that there is nomerit in the Miscellaneous Application. The Miscellaneous Applicationstands dismissed.

IA Nos 146014, 146015 of 2022 and 146002 and 146003 of2022 and Miscellaneous Application No 610 of 2020 withconnected applicationsC

30. Mr Mayank Kshirsagar, counsel appearing on behalf of theapplicants, states that the applicants have moved the Grievance RedressalAuthority constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh for seeking thebenefit of the order of this Court dated 8 February 2017. However,according to the counsel, GRA has not taken any decision on theDapplication.

31. If the GRA has yet not taken any decision, as stated beforethis Court, on the representations/applications filed by the applicants, wepermit the applicants to move the GRA for expeditious disposal of therepresentations/applications. The GRA shall, in that event, dispose ofEthe representations/applications within a period of two months from thedate of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event that theapplicants are aggrieved by the order of the GRA, it would be open tothem to challenge the correctness of the order by adopting appropriateremedies before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

32. Hence, no further directions are required to be passed in theFpresent applications.

33. The applications are accordingly disposed of.

IA Nos 184229 of 2018, 184220 of 2018, 184221 of 2018,184236 of 2018, 184237 of 2018, 184244 of 2018, 184246 of 2018,184240 of 2018, 184241 of 2018 and 184242 of 2018G

34. None appears on behalf of the applicants.

35. The applications are dismissed for non-prosecution.

H

(Assisted by : Priyanshu Agarwal, LCRA)

Applications disposed of.