NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 407, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 407 
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(I.A.Nos. 42, 43, 50-5 I & 52-53) 
IN 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of2002) 
FEBRUARY 08, 2017 
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, N. V. RAMANA 
AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India - Art. 142 - Implementation of Sardar 
Sarovar Project - Rehabilitation of the 'project affected families' -
Equitable settlement - Payment of compensation - On facts, 
Rehabilitation package offered to 4998 'project affected families' 
out of which 681 families (510 project affected families, which had 
originally opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package' plus 171 
families which had claimed land in lieu of land), yet to be 
compensated - In view thereof. issuance of direction to the 
concerned authority, to pay compensation to the 681 'project 
affected families', at the rate of Rupees sixty /akhs per family, as a 
matter of full and final settlement - Furthermore, 1358 families, out 
of the 4264 families which had received both installments, under 
the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', were duped - So as to alleviate 
their hardship, 1358 project affected families lo be further 
compensated - Issuance of directions to the concerned authorities 
to pay 1358 project affected families, Rupees fifteen lakhs per family, 
deducting the earlier installments made to suchfamilies -As regards 
the grievance with reference to the amenities postulated under the 
Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award, the same may
be raised 
before the concerned Grievance Redressal Authority within the 
stipulated period - Thus, the said order is exclusively directed 
towards the resettlement and rehabilitation of the 'project affected 
families', in State of Madhya Pradesh - Direction issued to States 
of Gujarat and Maharashtra to conclude all the commuted 
resettlement and rehabilitation activities, in the re~pective States, 
within the stipulated period. 
407 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A. Nos. 42, 43, 50-51 
& 52-53 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of2002 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 
WITH 
B 
SLP. (C) No. 7663 of 20 I 6. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG., P. S. Patwalia, Tushar Mehta, ASGs, S. S. 
Shamshery, AAG., A. K. Ganguli, Mrs. V. Mohana,Ashok Desai, Arvind 
V. Savant, Sr. Advs., San jay Parikh, Clifton Doozario, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, 
Ms. Nini Susan Thomas, Ms. Surabhi Aggarwal, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, 
C 
Prashant Bhushan, C. D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Syed Naqvi, Rajesh 
Kumar, N. K. Karhail, Ms. Manila Venna, (For G. S. Makker), Ms. Kiran 
Bhardwaj, Raj at Nair, (For M. K. Maroria), Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. 
Jesal Wahi, Ms. Mamta Singh, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Amit Sharma, 
An kit Raj, (For Mil ind Kumar), Advs. for the appearing parties. 
D 
Ms. Medha Patkar, In Person. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI I. We have heard this 
matter over a number of days. The instant exercise is being carried out, 
so as to arrive at an equitable settlement, for the rehabilitation of the 
'project affected families', consequent upon the implementation of the 
Sardar Sarovar Project. The figures, which we will indicate in our order, 
may be treated as tentative. It will be open to others similarly situate, to 
seek the same relief, by establishing their credentials (before the 
Grievance Redressal Authority). 
2. We are infonned, that
rehabilitation packages, had to be offered 
to 4998 'project affected families' in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Out 
of these 'project affected families', 4774 families opted for the 'Special 
Rehabilitation Package', namely, they would accept cash payment as 
compensation, and would purchase land out of the said payment. The 
aforestated payment was to be made in two installments. The first 
installment would be spent as earnest money, and the second installment 
would constitute the final payment for executing the sale deed. Out of 
the 4774 families, who had opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', 
4264 families are stated to have accepted, both installments. Out of the
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!] 
4998 'project affected families', according to the learned Attorney General 
(and the other learned counsel representing the concerned State 
Governments), 4264 have been fully compensated. These 4264 'project 
affected families' are not entitled to any further compensation. 
3. Out of those, who had opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation 
Package', 386 families were extended the first installment only, and could 
not be favoured with the second installment. They are disputants before 
this Court. In addition to these disputants, there were 120 families, who 
did not accept any money whatsoever, and another 4 families which 
were in litigation with reference to the compensation payable. Calculated 
in terms of the figures, indicated hereinabove, 510 (386 + 120 + 4) 'project 
affected families', are still entitled to compensation, as they had not 
been extended full compensation. This position has been acknowledged 
by the Union of!ndia (as also, the concerned State Governments). 
4. Besides those who opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation 
Package', there were some families who had sought land in lieu ofland, 
and not cash payment, under the 'Special Rehabilitation Package'. In 
fact, we are informed, there were 224 such families. Out of those 224 
families, 53 families accepted the land offered to them, without any 
objection. These 53 project affected families, according to the learned
Attorney General (and other learned counsel representing the concerned 
State Governments), have been fully compensated, and as such, their 
claim cannot be treated as a surviving claim. The remaining 171 families, 
have not been compensated, even though they are 'project affected 
families'. These 171 'project affected families' are admittedly entitled 
to their rehabilitation claim. 
5. Based on the figures, depicted in the foregoing two paragraphs, 
it is apparent, that 681 families are ,yet to be extended compensation 
(510 'project affected families', which had originally opted forthe 'Special 
Rehabilitation Package'+ 171 families which had claimed land in lieu of 
land). 
6. During the course of our deliberations, it came to be accepted 
atone stage, that compensation to these 681 families should be determined 
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. However, based 
on the suggestions made at the behest of the learned counsel for the 
applicants, that the land value in the vicinity ranges from Rupees fifteen 
409 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
410 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 l 7] 2 S.C.R. 
lakhs per hectare, to Rupees eighty lakhs per hectare, we were of the 
view, that it would be more appropriate to finally determine the 
compensation, here and now. The average suggested payment at the 
behest of the learned counsel forthe applicants would be in the range of 
Rupees thirty lakhs per hectare, and as such, every affected family would 
be entill~d to approximately, Rupees sixty lakhs, in terms of their 
entitlement (for two hectares of land) as compensation. Mr. Mukul 
Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India suggested, that the agreed 
figure be, fixed at Rupees forty five lakhs, in I ieu of two hectares ofland 
to which they are entitled, and that, the matter be concluded here and 
now itself. 
7. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the suggestions 
made at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are 
satisfied in directing the concerned authority, to pay compensation to the 
681 'project affected families', who have yet to receive compensation,' 
and who have been fully described above, at the rate of Rupees sixty 
lakhs per family, as a matter of full and final settlement. An undertaking 
in this behalf should be obtained, before the amount of compensation is 
released. 
8. It is also apparent, that a large number of families, out of the 
4264 families which had received both installments, under the 'Special 
Rehabilitation Package', were duped. The number
of duped 'project 
affected families', indicated in the Justice S.S. Jha Commission's Report, 
is 1358. This number is affirmed by the learned Attorney General for 
India, and confirmed by the respective State counsel. Referring to these 
1358 families, the Jha Commission in its report of January, 2016, had 
observed as under: 
"(29) Poor oustees particularly tribals have been looted by 
middlemen. They have lost their livelihood and are not daily 
wagers. Their installments have been siphoned off by the 
middlemen. When oustees appeared before the Commission 
were not even having clothes to wear. They have wrapped small 
cloth or towel round their waist when they appeared before the 
Commission." 
(emphasis is ours) 
It is in the above circumstances, that the Jha Commission 
recorded the following conclusions, in its report:
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
411 
OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] 
"CONCLUSION 
A 
I. The reason for fake sale deeds is a faulty SRP policy of the 
Government. The Government was not having sufficient irrigated 
agricultural lands in their Land Banks near the R & R sites. The 
Policy itself is against Narmada Award, and the judgment of the 
Supreme Court. Supreme Court has observed that the PAFs and 
B 
PAPs should live better life has been frustrated by this Policy. 
(i). By not allowing any scrutiny of the sale deeds and free hand 
has been given to the Rehabilitation Officers and Land Acquisition 
Officers in disbursing the compensation which resulted into large 
number of fake sale deeds. 
c 
(ii) The free access to middlemen in the Office of NVDA in 
getting the money withdrawn of the oustees also reflects about 
the interest of middlemen and nexus with NVDA officials. Though 
evidence is not received against the NVDA officials all the 
oustees have stated that they were made to sit outside the NVDA 
D 
office and their work was done by the middlemen and they were 
made to sign on the papers without explaining the contents 
discloses that NVDA officials had obtained signatures or thumb 
impressions of the oustees without explaining the contents 
demonstrate irregularity on their part and they are prima facie 
responsible for large number of fake registries. 
E 
2. The quality of construction was very poor without any planning. 
No geographical
mapping was done before selecting the R & R 
sites whereby cultivable good black cotton soil is converted into 
house building sites for residential plots. There was a faulty 
policy of not establishing a laboratory to test the soil for carrying 
out constructions on the black cotton soil. The construction was 
done on the R & R sites on common maps and designs of the 
building. Superior officers had never cared to visit R & R sites 
to examine the construction work. The Government has found 
40 engineers responsible for substandard quality of construction, 
but has not cared to rectify the defect after finding the 
substandard construction. Most of the places the expenditure 
on construction has gone waste as the R & R sites are not 
occupied by the oustees or they are occupied by very few PAPs 
and PAFs. Thus, the expenditure on these sites is waste of 
money. 
F 
G 
H
412 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
3. The NVDA has not maintained proper records relating to 
livelihood grants and alternative livelihood which itself 
demonstrate that there was large scale corruption in the livelihood 
grants and alternative livelihood. 
The officers of NV DA involved in allotment of house plot sites 
have not followed the Rules framed by the Government in 
allotting the plots. They have allotted the plots in an arbitrary 
matter and usurp the power of changing the allotment which 
was not vested with them. Thus, this shows their corrupt 
intention. Any arbitrary action attracts the vice of mala fide. 
The officers involved in allotment of plots are wholly responsible 
for irregularities and corruption in allotment and change of plots." 
(emphasis is ours) 
9. We are of the considered view, that even though the above-
mentioned 1358 project affected families were paid both installments, 
they need to be further compensated, so as to alleviate their hardship, as 
they have not been able to purchase land in lieu of land, not because of 
their own fault or lapse, but because they were duped. This would enable 
them to purchase alternative land at the lesser rate suggested by the 
learned counsel for the applicants. It is in the above view of the matter, 
that we hereby direct the concerned authorities, to pay these 1358 project 
affected families, a sum ofrupees fifteen lakhs per family. While making 
the instant payment,
earlier installments made to such families, shall be 
deducted (from out of the sum of Rupees fifteen lakhs). At the time of 
making the above payment, the concerned authority shall obtain an 
undertaking from the concerned 'project affected family', that the instant 
payment would be as a matter of final settlement of their claim, arising 
out of the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar Project. Any such 
claimant, who fails to furnish the above undertaking, would not be entitled 
to any payment of compensation. 
I 0. The above order takes into consideration the issue of 
compensation, towards all 'project affected families'. 
11. We have not addressed the issue of the amenities, that needed 
to have been extended to the concerned families, in terms of the Narmada 
Water Disputes Tribunal Award, dated 12.12.1979. In order to address 
any such grievance (with reference to the amenities postulated under 
the Tribunal's award, referred to above), we permit such of the 'project
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!) 
affected families', who have any grievance, to raise the same, before 
the concerned Grievance Redressal Authority, within one month from 
today. In case such a representation is made, and is accepted by the 
concerned Grievance Redressal Authority, the concerned State 
Government shall implement the recommendation, as expeditiously as 
possible, without raising any unnecessary objection. In case, any of the 
"project affected families" is not satisfied with the recommendations 
made by the Grievance Redressal Authority (on the representation, or 
alternatively, if no decision is taken thereon, within three months of 
registration of such representation), it shall be open to such family, to 
pursue its cause before a Court of competent jurisdiction, in consonance 
with law. 
12. All connected petitions/applications are disposed of in the 
above terms. Payment in consonance with the instant order, (to the 
681 ·'project affected families', referred to above) by the concerned 
State Government shall first be released to the Narmada Valley 
Development Authority (for short 'NVDA'), which in turn shall deposit 
the compensation payable to the 681 'project affected families', in the 
account of the Grievance Redressal Authority, within two months from 
today. The above amount shall positively be released, to the concerned 
681 project affected families, within one month thereafter. The same
procedure is directed to be followed with respect to the 1358 project 
affected families, which are stated to have been duped. 
13. All the occupants including all the 'project affected families' 
shall vacate the submergence area under reference, on or before 
31.07.2017, and in case there are individuals in the submergence area, 
after the aforesaid deposit has been made into the account of the 
Grievance Redressal Authority, after 31.07.2017, it shall be open to the 
State Government to remove all such individuals forcibly. 
14. The order passed hereinabove, is exclusively directed towards 
the resettlement and rehabilitation of the 'project affected families', in 
the State of Madhya Pradesh. We hereby direct the States of Gujarat 
and Maharashtra to conclude all the commuted resettlement and 
rehabilitation activities, in the respective States, within three months from 
today. 
15. In view of the consolidated order passed by us today, all 
pending litigations, civil and criminal, emerging out of the recommendations 
413 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
made by the Jha Commission, in the report dated January, 2016, shall 
come to an end. 
16. The instant order has been passed by us in exercise of our 
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution oflndia, and with the 
tacit consent of the Union of India (and the concerned State 
B 
Governments), and shall not ever be treated as a precedent, or be cited 
for similar claims for compensation. 
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 
Nidhi Jain 
Matter disposed of.