HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.25257 of 2006 Between: Dibbapalem Matsyakarula Mahila Sankshema Sangam, Dibbapalem, represented by its President and another. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioners : Sri V. Mallik Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 : Sri A. Satya Prasad, Special Government Pleader. Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 8 and : Sri E. Manohar, 9 to 15 Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad. 11th April, 2008 Per Anil R. Dave, C.J. 1) This petition, which is in the nature of public interest litigation, has been filed by the residents of Village Dibbapalem. Village Dibbapalem is on the seashore and most of the residents of the village are fishermen. 2) The State of Andhra Pradesh, so as to develop a goods Port, decided to develop a Port named ‘Gangavaram Port’ in public-private partnership at Village Dibbapalem. The said village – area was selected to develop the Port for the reason that not only the said place is on the seashore, it is also near a national highway and a very good rail network is available at that place. Moreover, it appeared that several industrial areas would be in a position to avail the services, which might be rendered by the said proposed Port and, therefore, the aforesaid decision was taken by the State. 3) For the purpose of developing the said area as a Port, it was necessary to acquire certain land and to displace the villagers, who were residing in the vicinity. So as to see that the villagers who are displaced from Village Dibbapalem, the State had decided to frame a policy, whereby those villagers residing at Dibbapalem are to be shifted for the purpose of developing a Port at that place. 4) This petition has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation alleging that the residents of Dibbapalem Villaage have not been properly compensated and sufficient efforts are not being made by the State for their rehabilitation. 5) Learned Advocate, Sri V. Mallik has appeared for the petitioners and has submitted that it is the bounden duty of the State to make all possible efforts to rehabilitate the displaced persons of Dibbapalem as the State has displaced them so as to have Gangavaram Port at the place where they were residing. He has drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.68, Transport, Roads and Buildings (P-I) Department, dated 29th March, 2005 and G.O.Ms.No.68, Irrigation & CAD (Project Wing LA-IV R&B) Department, dated 8th April, 2005 and the policy laid down by the State with regard to rehabilitation and re-settlement of the displaced persons and has submitted that in spite of a very good policy framed by the State, the State has not done the needful for rehabilitation of the residents of Dibbapalem and, therefore, a prayer has been made in the petition to the effect that the State authorities be directed to do the needful for implementation of rehabilitation and re- settlement package assured to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. 6) The learned Advocate has submitted that the residents of Dibbapalem are mostly fishermen. They have been settled now at a distant place, Yarada. According to him, it would be difficult for the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to commute between Yarada and the seashore for the reason that they are fishermen and for the purpose of earning their livelihood, they will have to visit the seashore everyday. It has also been submitted that no proper facilities for fish landing centres or jetties have been provided at the place where the petitioners and others will have to do the fishing activities. It has also been submitted that as per the package assured by the State, substantial amount was to be paid to the displaced persons, but amount as assured has not been paid. It has also been submitted that because of the displacement, many of the residents of Dibbapalem have been rendered unemployed and the State has not taken care to give employment to such persons. 7) The learned Advocate has also submitted that at an earlier point of time, a petition being Writ Petition No.8185 of 2006, had been filed by the residents of Dibbapalem for a declaration that the action of the State and other respondents with regard to construction of Gangavaram Port is illegal as it was being done in violation of G.O.Ms.No.68, Transport, Roads and Buildings (P-I) Department, dated 29th March, 2005 and G.O.Ms.No.68, Irrigation & CAD (Project Wing LA-IV R&B) Department, dated 8th April, 2005 for the reasons stated in the said petition. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 27th April, 2006 with a liberty to file another petition if the State and other respondents did not follow G.O.Ms.Nos.68, dated 29th March, 2005 and 8th April, 2005. As the State and other respondents did not act as per the package plan, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present petition. 8) It has been, thus, submitted by the learned Advocate that the State be directed to act as per G.O.Ms.Nos.68 and provide all facilities assured to the residents of Dibbapalem. 9) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and other Advocates appearing for Gangavaram Port, have opposed the petition by submitting that the State and other authorities have tried their best for rehabilitation and re-settlement of the petitioners and other displaced persons of Village Dibbapalem and, therefore, the petition be dismissed with costs. It has also been alleged that the petition has been filed with some oblique motive because some of the petitioners were parties to certain arrangements which had been made among the displaced persons on one hand and the State on the other. It has been submitted that about 106 meetings had been held by the officers of the State, Port officers and the affected persons so as to find a way out to help the displaced persons and as per the agreement – understanding arrived at among the parties, the needful has already been done by the State and by other authorities and, therefore, this petition is absolutely false and frivolous. 10) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and its officers has submitted that the State has done everything which is possible for the displaced persons and even as on today, the process is going on whereby the displaced persons would be benefited in the near future. It has been submitted that re-settlement of the displaced persons requires not only huge funds, but also requires setting up of a good infrastructure. At present, substantial work has been done and some work is also in progress so as to see that the displaced persons are given more and more facilities. According to him, in fact, more facilities are being provided than what the displaced persons were getting before they were displaced. 11) Relying upon the counter filed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam – respondent No.2 herein, it has been submitted that sufficient arrangements have been made for transportation of the displaced persons of Dibbapalem, who have been settled at Yarada. A road is being constructed so as to connect Yarada and the seashore, where infrastructure has been developed for the fishermen. It has been submitted that at present, new fish landing centres have already been developed at Yarada Beach. The said place has been provided with electricity, water and sanitation facilities and it is also well connected with an approach road. At present, free bus facility has been provided from Yarada Village to Yarada Beach, where fishing activities are being done. It has also been submitted that jetty has been constructed so that fish can be unloaded smoothly and necessary arrangements have also been made for berthing of the vessels of the fishermen. 12) Thus, it has been submitted on behalf of the State that all possible facilities have been provided to the displaced persons for their fishing activities. It has been fairly admitted that the road connecting Yarada and the seashore has not been fully constructed at present as the said construction is likely to take some time. It has been submitted that due efforts are being made to see that all facilities which are to be provided to the displaced persons with regard to their fishing activities and for having easy access from Yarada Village to Yarada seashore are being made. It has been reiterated that at present, free transportation is provided to the displaced persons so as to see that they are not put to more difficulties. It has been also submitted that as a matter of fact, the displaced persons are having better facilities at the seashore for doing their fishing activities than the facilities which were available to them prior to their re-settlement because the infrastructure is being provided to them in a well planned and scientific manner. It has been, therefore, submitted that the grievances ventilated in the petition are not well founded. 13) It has been further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that substantial amount is being disbursed to the persons who have been rendered unemployed. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that, by way of compensation, 1570 families have been given certain packages, which have been described in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2. A bare perusal of the said reply denotes that in all, 1570 boat owners have been given Rs.44,500/- each. Shifting charges to the tune of Rs.15,000/- have been paid to each boat owner, and maintenance charges per boat owner at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month are being paid. 446 boat workers are being paid wages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. For six months, 473 persons have been paid wages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. In addition to the above amounts disbursed individually, for construction of houses, 1570 families have been paid Rs.5000/- each, and in all, Rs.25,00,000/- have been given by way of financial assistance for DWCRA women. For maintenance of cattle, Rs.1,200/- were given to each family, which owned cattle. Moreover, Rs.25,000/- were given to 550 fishermen families by way of additional grant, and land admeasuring 160 square yards has been given by way of house site to each affected family. These are only some of the details with regard to financial help rendered to the displaced persons in addition to other facilities referred to in the counter affidavit. Thus, it has been submitted that sufficient financial help has been rendered to the displaced persons by the State. 14) Some grievance has also been made with regard to blasting operations done near Village Yarada. With regard to blasting operations, it has been stated that the said operations are carried out at a pre-determined time and only in Yarada hills and so far, nobody has been adversely affected by the same. 15) We have heard the learned Advocates at length and have carefully gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 – Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Upon perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the State, it is crystal clear that needful has been done and is still being done by the State for re- settlement and rehabilitation of the displaced persons of Dibbapalem. Rehabilitation of the entire village is not a small thing and that definitely takes a lot of time. This is a process and one cannot expect the said process to come to an end immediately. It is also pertinent to note that haphazard work so as to complete the process of setting up new infrastructure would not be in the interest of the displaced persons themselves because in that event, quality of work may not be up to the mark. 16) In view of the huge amount spent by the State for rehabilitation of the displaced persons and the facilities granted to them, it is clear that all possible efforts have been made and are being made to settle the displaced persons. Moreover, we find that the displaced persons have been provided better facilities now because fish landing centres, jetty etc. constructed at Yarada seashore, are much better than those which were available to them at Dibbapalem, as the infrastructure is being provided now in a planned and scientific manner and at this time, when there are substantial advancements in the society, we are sure that the displaced persons have been benefited. At present, free transportation has been provided so that without incurring further expenditure, they can reach Yarada seashore from the village for their fishing activities. 17) In the process of displacement, some of the residents had been rendered unemployed for some time and they have been also sufficiently compensated in terms of money. 18) In addition to the above facilities, the State has provided land for construction of houses and has provided sufficient financial help for putting up construction on the land so allotted. 19) The above facts clearly denote that sufficient efforts have been made for rehabilitation and re-settlement of the displaced persons. Moreover, we find that about 106 meetings had been organised with the displaced persons by the State authorities and the Port authorities. The promises, which had been given, have been substantially fulfilled. The Port authorities are also extending cooperation to the displaced persons. In fact, some of the petitioners are signatories to the agreements arrived at, at an earlier date, and those agreements are being duly acted upon. 20) The above facts clearly denote that there is no justifiable reason for the petitioners to make hue and cry in this petition, which is in the nature of public interest litigation. If all promises could not be fulfilled till now, we are sure that the State would do the needful to see that the remaining unperformed part of their promises would be performed at an early date. If still something is yet to be done, it is always open to the petitioners to make a representation before the State authorities and we are sure that the State authorities would do the needful after considering the nature of demands. 21) For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the grievances ventilated in this petition are not very well founded and, therefore, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 11th April, 2008. GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J. ARS