State of Madhya
Pradesh & ANR. Vs. Bheru Singh & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 1211
of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) 30685 of 2009)
Bheru Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ANR.
Civil Appeal No. 1212
of 2012 arising out of SLP (C ) No. 10163/2010
J U D G E M E N T
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.
1.
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 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.
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. 4Subsequently, 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 5and 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 6direction 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,
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."
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.
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 10and 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 11order 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 12hereinbefore 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 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 14respondent-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 15any 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 16beneficial 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 installments 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 (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 192005 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.
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 I st 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 21compensation 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 22Court 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."
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 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..."
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
24never 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 25Pradesh 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. I
t 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.
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?"
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 28judgment
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. II nd 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.
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 30holder
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 IIIrd 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 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 33and
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 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 35family 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 36bearing 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 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 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 38litigation 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 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 40State 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 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 42only 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 43forum 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 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
Back
