Narmada Bachao Andolan vs State Of M.P

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

B. On 10.1.1992, a detailed Project Report was prepared and submitted to the State Government and the Final Project Report was approved by Technical Committee of Central Water Commission vide order dated 6.5.1997. Clearance to the project was given by the Government of India. It was on 10.10.2002 that the project was accorded Environmental and Forest clearance.

E. Appellant approached the High Court by filing writ petition No. 1360 of 2009 claiming various reliefs, inter-alia, to stop further construction which may cause submergence so that displaced families are resettled and rehabilitated in 6 months before the submergence; to direct State Government to provide irrigated agricultural land to eligible oustees including encroachers and landless labourers; to declare the order dated 7.6.1991 passed by Narmada Valley Development Department (hereinafter called NVDD) amending para 5.1 of the Re-

settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 (hereinafter called R & R Policy) to be ultra vires and unconstitutional, being arbitrary and mala fides.

the writ petition was filed at much belated stage, i.e. after completion of the dam; appellant had an alternative efficacious remedy before the Grievance Redressal Authority (hereinafter called GRA); amendment in para 5.1 of the R & R Policy was only procedural, and carried out legally and was thus valid; even otherwise the amendment to para 5.1 was inconsequential because the allotment of land for the oustees is 3 provided under Clause 3 of the R & R Policy and amendment carried out in Clause 3 of the Policy at subsequent stage had not been challenged by the appellant.

G. The High Court considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and held that challenge to the validity of the amendment dated 7.6.1991 was belated and could not be entertained.

The alternative remedy before the GRA was efficacious and no extraordinary situation prevailed warranting the High Court to interfere at such a stage. The landless labourers were not entitled for allotment of agricultural land. The oustees had been offered grant; the value of their land had also been assessed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called `the Act 1894'). Person aggrieved, if any, can approach the GRA if he is not satisfied with the reliefs granted to him in terms of the R & R Policy. After taking the aforesaid view, the High Court issued various directions including: to install radial gates, block sluice gates and to fill up dam upto 310 metres; when canal network is ready, the Government could approach the Court to fill up the dam to 317 metres; the Government would ensure that land oustees were given benefits to which they are entitled under the R & R Policy within four 4 weeks; and that persons aggrieved, if any, were at liberty to agitate the grievances in respect of reliefs before the GRA.

in-charge of both the said Departments, amended Clauses 4.1, 5.1 and 8.3 of the R & R Policy and issued the amended policy on 7.6.1991 in the name of the Governor of the State. The copy of the said amendment order was issued to 44 officers concerned as is evident from the record.

11. On 27.4.2002, the amendment was made in Clause 3.2 of the R & R Policy putting the words "as far as possible" for allotment of agricultural land to the oustees in lieu of the land acquired.

Submissions so made on behalf of the appellant in this regard are preposterous.

Land to landless labourers:

32. So far as the present appeal in respect of Upper Beda Project is concerned, the rehabilitation policy for the oustees provided that the displaced families would be rehabilitated maintaining existing structure of social groups as far as possible, in the command area or near the periphery of the affected areas in accordance with their preferences.

in the second, third and fourth year of displacement, respectively. In addition, a further sum of Rs.12,500/- shall be kept in reserve for every landless oustee family and for earning 2 livelihood or for purchase of productive assets.

The above poverty line and the amount to be kept in reserve is also linked with special support amount and the reserve shall also be proportionately increased accordingly. For other landless families special financial assistance of Rs.19,500/- will be given for the purchase of productive assets." (Emphasis added)

(Emphasis added)

In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to accept the submission made by Ms. Palit that landless labourers are entitled for allotment of agricultural land to the extent of 2 hectares. The said contention is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to us that landless labourer could be entitled for allotment of agricultural land admeasuring two hectares. Neither it had ever been contemplated nor it is compatible with R & R Policy. Nor such land had ever been allotted to this class of persons. The contention is hereby rejected.

38. In view of the above, appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Before parting with the case, we record our deep sense of appreciation and thanks to Mr. Gourab Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General for India, for rendering assistance to the Court on our request.