Case: Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

to be considered at the stage of its final hearing. 23. The many interim orders that this Court made in the years in which this writ petition was pending show how very little had been done in regard to the relief and rehabilitation of those ousted. It is by reason of the interim orders, and, in fairness, the co-operation and assistance of learned counsel who appeared for the States, that much that was wrong has now been redressed. The States have also been persuaded to set up Grievance Redressal Authorities and it will be the responsibility of these Authorities to ensure that those ousted by reason of the Project are given relief and rehabilitation in due measure. 24. The States are lagging behind in the matter of the identification and acquisition of land upon which the oustees are to be resettled. Having regard to the experience of the past, only the Grievance Redressal Authorities can be trusted by this Court to ensure that the States are in possession of vacant lands suitable for the rehabilitation of the oustees. During the time that it takes to assess the environmental impact of the Project, the States must take steps to obtain, by acquisition or otherwise, vacant possession of suitable lands upon which the oustees can be rehabilitated. When the Project obtains environmental clearance, assuming that it does, each of the Grievance Redressal Authorities of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra must certify, after inspection, before work on the further construction of the dam can begin, that all those ousted by reason of the increase in the height of the dam by 5 meters from its present level have already been satisfactorily rehabilitated and also that suitable vacant land for rehabilitating all those who will be ousted by the increase in the height of the dam by another 5 meters is already in the possession of the respective States; and this process must be repeated for every successive proposed 5 meter increase in the dam height. 25. Only by ensuring that relief and rehabilitation is so supervised by the Grievance Redressal Authorities can this Court be assured that the oustees will get their due. 26. It is necessary to provide for the contingency that, for one or other reason, the work on the Project, now or at any time in the future, does not proceed and the Project is not completed. Should that happen, all oustees who have been rehabilitated must have the option to continue to reside where they have been rehabilitated or to return to where they were ousted from, provided such place remains habitable, and they must not be made at all liable in monetary or other terms on this account. 27. When the writ petition was filed the process of relief and rehabilitation, such as it was, was going on. The writ petitioners were not guilty of any laches in that regard. In the writ petition they raised other issues, one among them being related to the environmental clearance of the Project. Given what has been held in respect of the environmental clearance, when the public interest is so demonstrably involved, it would be against public interest to decline relief only on the ground that the Court was approached belatedly. 28. I should not be deemed to have agreed to anything stated in Brother Kirpals judgment for the reason that I have not traversed it in the course of what I have stated. 29. In the premises, (1) The Environmental Impact Agency of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Union of India shall forthwith appoint a Committee of Experts in the fields mentioned in Schedule III of the notification dated 27th January, 1994, called the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994. (2) The Committee of Experts shall gather all necessary data on the environmental impact of the Project. They shall be free to commission or carry out such surveys and studies and the like as they deem necessary. They shall also consider such surveys and studies as have already been carried out. (3) Upon such data, the Committee of Experts shall assess the environmental impact of the Project and decide if environmental clearance to the project can be given and, if it can, what environmental safeguard measures must be adopted, and their cost. (4) In so doing, the Committee of Experts shall take into consideration the fact that the construction of the dam and other work on the Project has already commenced. (5) Until environmental clearance to the project is accorded by the Committee of Experts as aforestated, further construction work on the dam shall cease. (6) The Grievance Redressal Authorities of the States of Gujarat. Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall ensure that those ousted by reason of the Project are given relief and rehabilitation in due measure. (7) When the Project obtains environmental clearance, assuming that it does, each of the Grievance Redressal Authorities of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra shall, after inspection, certify, before work on the further construction of the dam can begin, that all those ousted by reason of the increase in the height of the dam by 5 meters from its present level have already been satisfactorily rehabilitated and also that suitable vacant land for rehabilitating all those who will be ousted by the increase in the height of the dam by another 5 meters is already in the possession of the respective States. (8) This process shall be repeated for every successive proposed 5 meter increase in the dam height. (9) If for any reason the work on the Project, now or at any time in the future, cannot proceed and the Project is not completed, all oustees who have been rehabilitated shall have the option to continue to reside where they have been rehabilitated or to return to where they were ousted from, provided such place remains habitable, and they shall not be made at all liable in monetary or other terms on this account. 30.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The many interim orders that this Court made in the yearin which this writ petition was pending show how very little had been done in regard to the relief andse ousted. It is byinterim orders, and, inon and assistance of learned counsel who appeared for the States, that much that was wrong has now been redressed. The States have also been persuaded to set up Grievance Redressal Authorities and it will be the responsibility of these Authorities to ensure that those ousted byof the Projectare given relief and rehabilitation in due measure.The States are lagging behind in the matter of the identification andnd upon which the oustees are to be resettled. Havingto the experience of the past, only the Grievance Redressal Authorities can be trusted by this Court to ensure that the States are innt lands suitable for theoustees. During the time that it takes to assess the environmental impactof the project,the States must take steps to obtain, by acquisition or otherwise, vacantle lands upon which the oustees can be rehabilitated. When theobtains environmental clearance, assuming that iteach of the Grievance Redressal Authorities of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra must certify, after inspection, before work on the furtherof the damcan begin, that all those ousted byn the heightof the damby 5 meters from its present level have already been satisfactorilyrehabilitating all those who will be ousted by the increasethe height ofby another 5 meters is already in theof the respectiveand this process must be repeated for every successive proposed 5 meter increase in the dam height.Only by ensuring that relief and rehabilitation is so supervised by the Grievance Redressal Authorities can this Court be assured that the oustees will get their due.It is necessary to provide for the contingency that, for one or other reason, the, now or at any time in the future, does not proceed and theis not completed. Should that happen, all oustees who have been rehabilitated must have the option to continue to reside where they have been rehabilitated or to return to where they were ousted from, provided such place remains habitable, and they must not be made at all liable in monetary or other terms on this account.When the writ petition was filed the processof relief andsuch as it was, was going on. The writ petitioners were not guilty of any laches in that regard. In the writ petition they raised other issues, one among them being related to the environmental clearanceGiven what has been held in respect of the environmental clearance, when the public interest is so demonstrably involved, it would be against public interest to decline relief only on the ground that the Court was approachedn of theare given relief and rehabilitation in due measure.