AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3082 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5663 OF 2004 Tarapur Anushakti Prakalp Pidit Janata Samiti ... Applicant Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rajiv Patil with Mr. Sachin Punde for the applicant. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the State. Mr. Ram Naik – Intervenor. Mr. Rajiv Kumar with Ms. Lope Munim and Mr. H.K. Bhalerao i/b M/s. Rajesh Kothari & Co. for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Kiran Kandpile for Union of India. Mr. K.N. Kore for respondents 8. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2011. AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 2 : P.C.:- 1. The applicant is an Association of Project Affected Persons of Villages Akkarpatti and Popharan situated at Taluka Palghar, District Thane. These villages are acquired for Tarapur Automic Power Station (Unit Nos.III and IV). The instant petition is filed by the applicant seeking complete rehabilitation of the Project Affected Persons. This civil application is filed by the applicant praying that the State of Maharashtra may be directed to pay rent and/or compensation from July, 2006 to the 163 Project Affected families, whose names are mentioned in Ex-B to the civil application. Affidavit in reply dated 18/12/2006 is filed by Mr. Sandeep Kalambe, District Rehabilitation Officer, Thane. Paragraph 2 thereof is material and needs to be quoted. “2. As regards the first issue, I say that the 163 families whose names figure in the list at Exhibit-B to the Application, are entitled to get rent compensation from July, 2006. I state that care will be taken to see that the said project affected 163 families would be paid the AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 3 : amount of compensation due as early as possible and preferably not later than four weeks.” 2. Thus, the District Rehabilitation Officer has admitted that 163 families are entitled to get rent compensation from July, 2006. In fact, a promise was given that the amount of compensation will be paid as early as possible and preferably not later than four weeks. Unfortunately, till date, the said amount is not paid to the 163 Project Affected families. 3. We have heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the NPCIL. We have also heard Mr. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the State and Mr. Ram Naik, the Intervenor. 4. Our attention is drawn by learned counsel to certain orders passed by the Division Bench of this court in the instant writ petition. By order dated 1/10/2004, the AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 4 : Division Bench framed Scheme for Rehabilitation for Project Affected Persons. The Scheme, inter alia, required that the Project Affected Persons should be provided houses. It is pertinent to note that a statement was made by counsel for the NPCIL to the court which the court recorded that each of the Project Affected Persons' families will be given Rs.15,000/- towards the rent or compensation for temporary accommodation without any reservation and this amount will be deposited by the NPCIL with the State Government and will be disbursed by the District Rehabilitation Officer to the concerned families subject to signing of a consent letter containing an unequivocal undertaking that the Project Affected Persons' families will vacate their respective houses by 20/10/2004. 5. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the NPCIL informs the court that pursuant to this statement, the NPCIL deposited an amount of Rs.187.50 lakhs with the State Government. Subsequently, Rs.110.00 lakhs was AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 5 : paid by the NPCIL to the State Government. 6. On 3/11/2004, the Division Bench observed that the NPCIL will not be required to contribute for construction of houses and for granting rent subsidy to other than 1167 families as per the list prepared by District Rehabilitation Officer. The District Rehabilitation Officer was directed to forthwith release the rent subsidy to the allottees who have signed the undertaking as directed by this court. 7. On 13/4/2005, the Division Bench observed that though it was informed that the construction of the houses for the Project Affected Persons will be completed within 7 or 8 months, it appeared that it was delayed by another six months. This court further observed that the Project Affected Persons' families have already vacated their dwelling houses. The Akkarpatti and Popharan villages have been vacated. Considering the fact that the Project Affected Persons' families will have to stay in the alternative accommodation for further period of at least AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 6 : six months, the NPCIL was directed to deposit with the Collector/Rehabilitation Officer, an amount of Rs.15,000/- per Project Affected Person's family towards rent and/or compensation. This court observed that this direction was issued on the specific understanding that the NPCIL will not be liable to pay any further amount towards rent or compensation and in case the project is delayed, it will be the responsibility of the State to pay the rent and/or compensation. Pursuant to this order, the NPCIL paid an amount of Rs.187.50 lakhs to the Collector/Rehabilitation Officer. 8. On 27/4/2005, the Division Bench observed that as far as contribution from the NPCIL is concerned, it cannot escape its responsibility of sharing the expenditure of rehabilitation. This court observed that the NPCIL cannot dispute the fact that commercial production has commenced already. This court further observed that although, it is a project of national pride and in public interest, rehabilitation work is also for public good, it is AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 7 : only with the co-operation of the locals that such projects work efficiently. This court further observed that ends of justice will be met if the NPCIL is directed to bear the additional financial burden arising out of construction costs for standard houses proportionately with State Government. This court clarified that the State cannot escape its responsibility even if it does or does not get any assistance/grants from the Central Government. This court further observed that, therefore, the State should make arrangement to meet the differential cost i.e. difference between the actual construction cost minus the share of the NPCIL therein. 9. On 7/2/2006, a grievance was made before the Division Bench that from the month of November, 2005 onwards the compensation had not been paid to the Project Affected Persons. This court observed that by order dated 13/4/2005, the responsibility of paying compensation from November, 2005 had been put on the State Government. However, the compensation for the AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 8 : months of November, December and January is yet to be paid. This court observed that the State Government has taken out an application for recalling or modifying order dated 13/4/2005. This court further observed that considering the fact that the said order is still subsisting, the State Government will have to comply with it without prejudice to their rights and contentions. This court further directed that till such time as the court considers the application for recalling of order dated 13/4/2005, a sum of Rs.7,500/- per head being compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- per head per Project Affected Person's family will be paid by the State Government on or before 10/3/2006. Again on 20/4/2006, learned Associate Advocate General appearing for the State Government as well as learned counsel for the NPCIL stated before the Division Bench that the Project Affected Persons' families will not be required to pay Rs.50,000/- towards their contribution for the costs of the project and the State Government and the NPCIL shall respectively pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- in terms of the earlier direction AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 9 : issued by this court. 10. As per NPCIL, as of today, it has paid Rs.485 lakhs to the State Government towards rent or compensation to be paid to the Project Affected Persons. This is so stated by Mr. G.G. Kulkarni, Deputy General Manager (HR) of NPCIL in his affidavit dated 24/6/2009. It is the contention of the State Government that so far as payment of rent or compensation is concerned, the entire responsibility lies upon the NPCIL because it is the project of the NPCIL. Our attention is drawn by Mr. Patil to the minutes of the meeting held on 12/10/2006 in Mantralaya where an unilateral decision was taken by the State Government that the responsibility of paying the rent or compensation is of NPCIL and this will be conveyed to NPCIL. We do not know how the State Government can draw any support from the minutes of this meeting. Admittedly, the NPCIL's representative was not present at the meeting. It is true that the State Government has filed an application for modification of order dated 13/4/2005. That application AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 10 : was filed way back in January, 2006. Till date, the State Government has not got the said order modified from this court. That order is still subsisting. In that order, this court has specifically observed that it was informed that the construction of houses will be completed within 7 to 8 months. However, it was delayed. This court directed the NPCIL to deposit with the Collector/Rehabilitation Officer an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards rent or compensation for further period of six months. It was clarified that this direction was issued on the specific understanding that the NPCIL will not be liable to pay any further amount towards rent or compensation and in case the project is delayed, it will be the responsibility of the State Government to pay the rent and/or compensation. In view of this order, which is not yet modified, we do not see how the State Government can evade its responsibility of making payment to 163 families who are yet to be paid rent and/or compensation from July, 2006 to March, 2007 when they were not put in possession of constructed houses. AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 11 : 11. On 7/2/2006, the Division Bench recorded that the State Government has taken out an application for recalling of order dated 13/4/2005. But, the Division Bench again clarified that considering the fact that there is an order of the Division Bench, which is subsisting, the State of Maharashtra will have to comply with the order without prejudice to their rights and contentions. 12. It is submitted by Mr. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. that by letter dated 11/5/2011, the NPCIL has admitted its liability to pay the rent and/or compensation. This is denied by Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the NPCIL. 13. It was suggested during the hearing that some of the Project Affected Persons' families did not occupy the houses offered to them. Mr. Rajiv Patil has strongly opposed this submission. He showed certain photographs to us which indicate that the houses offered to the Project AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 12 : Affected Persons were dilapidated and in a state of utter disrepair. Prima facie, Mr. Patil is right in making a grievance that the Project Affected Persons could not have taken possession of such houses. This submission is, therefore, rejected. It is pointed out that the total amount of compensation which is yet to be paid comes to about 20.47 lakhs. It is distressing that since July, 2006, till March, 2007, 163 Project Affected Persons' families are not paid rent and/or compensation. If people are displaced presumably for public good, they cannot be treated in this manner. It is rightly observed by the Division Bench of this court that although it is a project of national pride and in public interest, rehabilitation work is also for public good, The State and other authorities cannot adopt such approach towards the displaced persons. They cannot be left high and dry. If there is any dispute between the NPCIL and the State Government as regards money, they should settle the dispute amicably or adopt legal proceedings against each other, if they are so advised but the Project AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 13 : Affected Persons must be paid their dues. 14. We have already noted the liability to pay rent and/or compensation is admitted in the affidavit filed by Mr. Kalambe, the District Rehabilitation Officer. In fact, a promise was made on oath that within six months from the date of the affidavit i.e. 18/12/2006 the said amount will be paid. That promise has not been kept. In the above circumstances, we direct the State of Maharashtra to pay each of the 163 Project Affected Persons' families the amount of rent or compensation due to them through the District Rehabilitation Officer. We make it clear that we have not considered the question whether it is the NPCIL who is liable to pay the amount or it is the State Government who has to bear the burden. That dispute can be settled by the two of them. The amount be paid to the 163 Project Affected Persons' families after following proper procedure. Let the entire exercise be conducted within a period of three weeks from today. AJN 25-AS-CAW3082.06 : 14 : 15. Civil application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]