NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLANversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                         (2017] 2 S.C.R. 407



                NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN                                    A
                                  v.
                 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                  (I.A.Nos. 42, 43, 50-5 I & 52-53)
                                  IN                                      B

                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of2002)
                        FEBRUARY 08, 2017
      (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, N. V. RAMANA
           AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]                                 c
        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       D
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
                                                                          E
matter offull 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,   F
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      G
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.
                                                                          H
                               407
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., Sanjay 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.

              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,
E     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).
F
              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
G     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
H
 NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND                                  409
      OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

4998 'project affected families', according to the learned Attorney General    A
(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      B
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   c
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,         D
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             E
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.
                                                                                F
        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).
                                                                               G
        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
                                                                               H
410            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [20 l 7] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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 Iieu of two hectares ofland
      to which they are entitled, and that, the matter be concluded here and
      now itself.
c              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
D     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
E     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:
 F
              "(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
G             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:
H
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    F
    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,
                                                                             G
    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.                                                                   H
412            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A            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
B            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
c            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,
D     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
E     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
 F    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
 G    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
 H
 NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND                                   413
      OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!)

affected families', who have any grievance, to raise the same, before            A
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
                                                                                 B
"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.                                                                        c
        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            D
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.                          E

        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         F
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                    G
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 ofthe recommendations
                                                                                 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.