Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.versusBHERU SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 65
- Decided
- 1 February 2012
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- A K GANGULY
Holding
Entitlement to land is governed strictly by the R&R Policy; only displaced families from whom more than 25% of land is acquired are eligible for two hectares, and major sons are not entitled to a separate allotment unless their own land was acquired.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the entitlement of displaced families from the Man Dam project in Madhya Pradesh to receive two hectares of land under the State's Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy. The High Court had directed that each adult son who became a major before the acquisition notification be treated as a separate displaced family and allotted land, a view the Supreme Court rejected. It held that the policy grants land only to families from whom more than 25% of their land was acquired, and a major son is entitled only if his own land was acquired. Consequently, the High Court's direction was set aside. The Court also ruled that the matter did not warrant referral to a larger bench as it stemmed from policy, not statutory law, and that further grievances should be addressed through the Grievance Redressal Authority or an appellate forum. The State's appeal was allowed, while the oustees' appeal was dismissed with liberty to approach the GRA.
Issues considered
- The entitlement of each major son of a displaced family to a separate allotment of two hectares under the R&R Policy.
- Whether the High Court's direction to allot land to each major son exceeds the scope of the R&R Policy.
- Whether a public interest litigation could be entertained after the issue had been previously adjudicated.
- Whether compensation for trees and wells can be deducted from the Special Rehabilitation Grant.
- Whether the controversy requires referral to a Constitution Bench.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23, s. 4
Subjects
land acquisitionrehabilitation and resettlement policymajor son entitlementspecial rehabilitation grantgrievance redressal authoritypublic interest litigationpolicy interpretation
Judgment
(2012] 1 S.C.R. 535
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. A
V.
BHERU SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1211 of 2012)
FEBRUARY 1, 2012
B
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA,
JJ.]
LAND ACQUISITION:
c
Acquisition of land for construction of Man Dam in State
of MP-Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R Policy)
framed by State Government - Claim for 2 hectares of land
for each major son of the landholder whose land had been
acquired - Held: Since the claim of entitlement of land is D
based exclusively on a policy decision of the State
Government which has been incorporated in R & R Policy,
the entitlement would be determined strictly based on the
Policy - R & R Policy makes it clear that only such displaced
family whose more than 25% of land holding had been
acquired, would be entitled to compensation of 2 hectares E
of land and this displacement of land would not merely be
notional - If each major son of the displaced family had not
been separately deprived of 25% of the land, then even as
per the R & R Policy, they were not entitled 2 hectares of land.
F
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
The oasteesldisplaced persons are weak and vulnerable
tribal population whose plea may get ignored or are not
properly addressed - In order to impart full justice to the G
causes in terms of R & R Policy, it is desirable that the State
Government may constitute an appellate forum where the
aggrieved party may challenge the decision of GRA in case
there is any justifiable reason to do so - Public Interest
Litigation.
535 H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A REFERENCE TO LARGER BENCH:
Conflicting views in two judgements of Supreme Court -
Held: Though there appears to be conflict in two judgments
of the Supreme Court in regard to claim of share by each
major son of the family whose land has been acquired for
8
construction of the dam, the issue arises out of a policy
decision of the State Government and hence the same at the
most would be confined to R & R Policy as the issue is not
really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provisions
having a bearing in future on other simifar controversy, so as
C to refer it to a Constitution Bench; the Court refrains from
referring the question to a larger Bench.
In the process of construction of Man Dam on the
tributary of Narmada river in the State of Madhya
D Pradesh, lands of 448 families were acquired, out of
which 62 families opted for and were allotted land as per
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R policy).
The remaining 386 families accepted full cash
compensation in terms of R & R policy. Subsequently,
E the State Government took a decision as a welfare
measure to grant Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) to
the families/ oustees who had lost their land, in order to
enabie them to purchase land of their own choice to the
extent they had lost in the submergence on the condition
F that they would not claim any land from the Government.
Out of the 386 families who had accepted full cash
compensation, 337 families accepted the SRG. Disputes,
which arose while implementing the R & R Policy and
disbursement of SRG, were referred to the Grievance
Redressal Authority. Aggrieved by some of the orders
G passed by the GRA a writ petition in public interest was
filed before the High Court, which though held that there
was substantial compliance of R & R policy, but directed
the State Government to allot land to every son of the land
holder, who had become a major on or before the
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 537
SINGH & ORS.
notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act and was part of A
the larger family from whom land had been acquired.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The two decisions of this Court reported
in 2005 (4) SCC 32 (Narmada Bachao Ii ) and (2011) 7 B
SCC 639 (Narmada Bachao Ill) undoubtedly appear to be
in conflict with each other in regard to the claim of share
by each major son of the family of land holder whose
land has been acquired. However, the question as to
whether major sons would be included in the definition C
of the displaced family or not is not really a legal issue
emerging from any statutory provision or ambiguity in the
Land Acquisition Act or any statute or an Act having a
bearing in future on other similar controversy so as to
refer it to a Constitution Bench of this Court. Since the D
entire issue arises out of a policy decision of the
Government of M.P. and at the most would be confined
to interpretation of the R & R Policy formulated by the
State of M.P., therefore, this Court refrains from referring
the question of entitlement of major son to a separate E
holding, to a larger Bench. [para 41-42] (566-B-D; 567-A-
B]
Narmada Bachao Ando/an Vs. Union of India 2005 (2)
=
SCR 840 2005 (4) SCC 32 and State of M.P. Vs. Narmada F
Bachao Ando/an & Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 639 - referred to.
1.2 When the claim or entitlement of land is based
exclusively on a policy decision of 'the Government of
M.P. which. has been incorporated in the R & R Policy,
the entitlement clearly would be based strictly on the G
Policy formulated by the State Government. This policy
holds a displaced family entitled to 2 hectares of land but
it further envisages actual displacement from the
acquired land which is 25%, meaning thereby, that only
such displaced family from whom more than 25% of its H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A land holding has been acquired would be entitled for
compensation of 2 hectares of land and this
displacement from land would not merely be notional.
Thus, even if the displaced family had several major sons,
allotment on account of acquisition to each major son
B does not arise in terms of the policy. It needs to be
highlighted that when there has been no acquisition from
each major son of the family, the question of allotment
of land to all major sons of the family would be clearly
contrary to the provision of the R & R Policy. [Para 43-
C 44] [567-C-H; 568-A-B]
1.3 The entire right of the respondent/oustee in this
litigation flows from the R & R Policy and it is crystal clear
that the redeeming feature of the policy is acquisition of
25% land of the displaced family. Therefore, even if the
D displaced family constituted of several major sons, the
acquisition of 25% of land from each major son is
completely missing and, therefore, there is no reason as
to why the parties should be allowed to be bogged down
into further litigation for determination of the question as
E to whether all major sons of a displaceq family are
entitled to a separate unit of 2 hectares of land or only
the land holder of the displaced family would be entitled.
Therefore, the direction of the High Court in the
impugned judgment for allotment of land to each major
F son of the displaced family needs to be overturned. [Para
44] [568-A-D]
1.4 The High Court was not justified in entertaining
a writ petition by way of public interest litigation when it
G had already dealt with the question against which the
appeal also travelled up to this Court and was seized of
other writ petitions on the question. Besides, the High
Court in the impugned judgment itself has laid down
that there had been substantial compliance of the R & R
Policy of the Government of M.P. and yet it directed the
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 539
SINGH & ORS.
State Government to consider the question of al!otment A
of 2 hectares of land to each major son of a displaced
family overlooking the fact that if each major son of the
displaced family had not been separately deprived of
25% of the acquired land, then even as per the Policy,
they were not entitled to 2 hectares of land. In that view B
of the matter also the direction of the High Court travels
beyond the scope of R & R Policy. The High Court had
no reason to expand the scope of R & R Policy by
directing the State Government to allot land to each of the
displaced family. [Para 45-46] [568-E-F; 569-C-E] c
Joydeep Mukharjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
=
2011 (2) SCR 493 (2011) 2 sec 706-relied on
1.5. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that
in the process of allotment, it is quite possible that some D
of the oustees might have been deprived of the land who
were separately holding the acquired land. But in order
to ensure effective implementation, there is already a
Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) and if the oustees
have any grievance in regard to non-implementation of E
the R & R Policy in so far as their entitlement as per the
policy is concerned, they would be free to move the GRA ·
for redressal of their grievance. But a blanket direction
as given out by the High Court to allot land to each major
son of a displaced family without any averment to the F
effect that they were deprived of 25% of acquired land
separately, appears to be contrary to the R & R Policy.
Acquisition of 25% of land is a condition precedent to
become eligible for allotment of 2 hectares of land. It,
therefore, needs to be clarified that this Court has not G
entered into the area of determination of the"question as
a
to whether major son of a family is entitled to separate
unit or not as even if (2005) 4 sec 32 is to be fpllowed
that each major son of adisplaced family is entitled to a
separate unit of compensatory land, deprivation of 25%
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A of land from them is totally missing and if that is so, the
. respondents cannot be allowed to reopen this question
after four years of revision of R & R Policy. [Para 47]
[569-F-H; 570-A-E]
2.1. When a social activist takes up the cause for
8
the oustees, it is expected of him to take a balanced view
of the cause raised on behalf of the affected party in the
light of the policy which is formulated and made
effective by the State authorities. The effort made by the
social activist taking up the cause for the rehabilitation
C of the oustees is laudable but in the process this Court
is under constraint as it cannot overlook the practical
fall out/consequences by allowing him to take up the
cause of the oustees oblivious of its consequence or
the administrative fall out since a cause cannot be
D allowed to be raised incessantly by indulging in
multiplicity of proceedings which at times do more harm
to the cause than seek cure for the misery of the affected
parties. [Para 47] [570-D-G]
E 2.2. The oustees/displaced persons come from the
weak and vulnerable tribal population whose plea may
get ignored or are not properly addressed. Therefore, for
this purpose and in order to impart full justice to the
cause in terms of the R & R Policy, it is desirable that the
F State Government may constitute an appellate forum
where the aggrieved party may challenge the decision of
the GRA in case there is any justifiable reason to do so.
This appellate forum should include a sitting or retired
District Judge and an administrative member under the
G Chairmanship of a retired Judge of the High Court which
will oversee whether the R & R Policy has been
effectively and accurately implemented and whether the
SRG ha11e been properly distributed in the light of the
grievance raised by the displaced persons. This appellate
forum in effect would confine itself to the questions
H relating to compliance of the R & R Policy and
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 541
SINGH & ORS.
distribution of SRG in terms of the provisions A
enumerated therein. [Para 49] [571-E-H; 572-A-C]
2.3 The respondents-oustees would be at liberty to
approach the GRA or the Appellate Forum of GRA in case
they have been deprived of adequate compensation or 8
benefit in any manner which is not in consonance with
the R & R Policy. Liberty is further granted to the
respondents including ths social activist-respondent
No.3 to take up the matter before the State Government
for rectification or further amendment of the Policy in case C
they are able to establish and make out a case that the
revision of R & R Policy 2003 still further requires
rectification or improvement as there can be no limitation
of time for reviewing or reframing a Policy decision if it
has to serve the cause of eradicating human suffering
specially if it has emerged as a consequence of the state D
activity like the land acquisition where the affected parties
lost their home and cultivable land. [Para 50] [572-D-G]
Case Law Reference:
2005 (2) SCR 840 referred to Para 3 E
(2011) 1 sec 639 referred to Para 3
2011 (2) SCR 493 relied on Para 45
CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1211"of F
2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.8.2009 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 48 of 2004.
WITH G
C.A. No. 1212 of 2012.
P.S. Patwalia, C.D. Singh, Sunny Choudhary, Aman Rahi,
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A Ajay Chauhan, Prashant Bhushan, Pyoli Swatija for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. These two appeals arise out of the judgement and order
dated 11.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Indore in a public interest petition bearing
Writ Petition No. 48 of 2004 against which the State of Madhya
c Pradesh as also the respondents Bheru Singh alongswith two
others which include a social activist have filed separate
Special Leave Petitions bearing Nos. 30685/2009 and 10163/
2010 respectively giving rise to these two appeals which are
confined to some of the directions only, that were issued by the
0 High Court in its impugned judgement, to be stated hereinafter.
3. The material factual details of these two appeals have
a prolonged history giving rise to a labyrinth of litigation which
emerged as a consequence of displacement of large number
of persons from a massive area of agricultural and homestead
E land which were in occupation of the oustees/displaced
persons, due to land acquisition which was done for the
purpose of construction of Man Dam on the tributary of
Narmada River in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This had given
rise to the filing of several other writ petitions in the High Court
F of Madhya Pradesh in the past which gave rise to the appeals
reaching even upto this Court and are reported in (2000) 10
sec 664, (2005) 4 sec 32 and (2011) 7 sec 639 which are
commonly referred to as Narmada Bachao 1st judgment,
Narmada Bachao llnd judgment and Narmada Bachao lllrd
G judgement.
4. But before we discuss the relevance and implications
of these judgements on the instant appeals, it would be relevant
to relate the historical background of the matter giving rise to
H a spate of litigations in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In
•
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 543
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
this context, it may be stated that a detailed Project Report ·A
(DPR) for the construction of 'Man Dam' on the tributary of
Narmada River at Village Jirabad, Tehsil Gandhwani, District
Dhar, having a total submergence area of 1168.67 hectares
in 17 villages of Tehsil Dhar and Gandhwani, District Dhar, M.P.
was submitted in July, 1982. A Rehabilitation and Re- B
settlement (R & R) was framed by the State of M.P. for the
project affected families (PAF) and oustees of Narmada
Project including 'Man Dam'. This R & R policy was later on
amended several times in which the latest amendment was
made in the year 2003. The Planning Commission of India c
accorded investment clearance for the 'Man Project' out of total
submergence area of 1168.67 hectares and 584.646 hectares
of private land was acquired by invoking the provision of Land
Acquisition, 1894. In the construction of the 'Man Dam' which
took place between the year 1991-1994, 1266 families were D
affected, out of which 448 families lost their land. Out of these
448 families, 62 families opted for land as per the policy and
they were given land in the year 1994 itself. The remaining 386
families accepted full cash compensation in terms of Clause
5.1 of R & R policy. 1 E
5. However, since the displaced persons were st\11
dissatisfied, the Government of Madhya Pradesh as a welfare
measure took a decision in 2002 to grant 'Special
Rehabilitation Grant' (SRG) to the families/oustees who had lost
their land in submergence in the Narmada Project in order to F
enable them to purchase land of their own choice to the extent
they lost in the submergence on condition that they will not claim
any land frqm the Government. The benefit of SRG was also
extended to the farnilies/oustees who had lost their land in
submergence in the 'Man Project'. Out of the 386 families who G
had accepted full cash compensation in terms of Clause 5.1
of R & R policy, 337 oustees/PAF came forward and accepted
the SRG. The intention behind the approval of SRG was that
every oustees' level of living should not be lower than what It
was before displacement, even if they cannot be made better H
•
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 1 S.C.R.
A off. The oustees who had been provided land for land by the
Government were not eligible for Special Rehabiliation Grant.
6. However, while implementing the R & R Policy and
distributing the SRG, disputes arose between the displaced
B persons and the executing authorities of the State of M.P. In
order to resolve the same, the Government of Madhya Pradesh
constituted a Committee known as Grievance Redressal
Authority. Subsequently, the Government of Madhya Pradesh
issued a notification dated 11.06.2002 extending the jurisdiction
of the Grievances Redressal Authority (GRA) to hear the
C grievances of the displaced families of the Man Dam Project
who started hearing the grievances of the displaced families
from July, 2002 with regard to their rehabilitation and
resettlement and continued to pass orders on the grievances
of the displaced families of Man Dam Project till 2003.
D
7. Aggrieved by some of the orders passed by the GRA
as well as the inadequate measures adopted by the
Government of Madhya Pradesh for rehabilitation and
resettlement of displaced families of the 'Man Dam Project',
E the respondents 1 and 2 who are tribals living in villages Khedi-
Balwadi and Khanpura of District Dhar alongwith Respondent
No. 3 who is stated to be a social activist working with the
people of displaced families of Man Dam Project which have
been submerged by the Man Dam Project, filed a writ petition
F in 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution as a PIL claiming
appropriate reliefs. Response of the State of Madhya Pradesh
was duly filed on 21.6.2004 in the writ petition No. 48/2004 and
in paragraph B it was specifically stated that 62 project
affected families who demanded land for land has been given
G land and all the orders of GRA have been complied with and
thus substantial compliance of R & R Policy was also made.
On 17.2.2005, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed further reply
to the rejoinder of the petitioner - Bheru Singh in W.P.No.48/
2004 and in paragraph B it was specifically stated that 62
H project affected families who demanded land for land has been
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 545
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
given land and with the help of SRG, the oustees have even A
purchased more land comparatively to the lost land in the
submergence and have even saved the money.
8. Still further on 19.3.2009, the State of Madhya Pradesh
filed its reply in the writ petition No.48/2004 submitting the B
status with regard to the rehabilitation of 448 families who had
lost their land in submergence. In the affidavit, the State of
Madhya Pradesh submitted that out of 448 families, 386
families accepted the full cash compensation as per R & R
Policy and remaining 62 who demanded land, have been
allotted land iro the year 1994 itself. Out of these 386 families, C
337 families accepted SRG and out of remaining of 49
families 26 families approached GRA for allotment of land but
their claim was rejected as they have already accepted full
cash compensation. Thereafter, on 1.5.2009, the State of
Madhya Pradesh filed further affidavit in the writ petition No. D
48/2004 wherein it was clarified that the cash compensation
was given to the land holders in 1995 with the direction to the
bani< to initially disburse only 50 per cent of the amount , with
the balance 50 per cent being payable only after obtaining
an order in that behalf from the concerned Land Acquisition E
Officer.
9. The Hon'ble High Court vide its impugned order dated
11.8.2009 passed in W.P.No.48/2004 was pleased to hold
that there was substantial compliance of R & R Policy but by F
relying on a previous judgment and order dated 21.2.2008
passed by the High Court of M.P. in W.P.No.4457/2007
(Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
directed the State to allot land to the adult son irrespective of
the fact whether he had lost the land or not. It has been stated G
herein by the State of Madhya Pradesh that subsequently the
three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by its judgment and
order dated 11.5.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2082/2011
reported in (2011) 7 sec 639 set aside the judgment and
order dated 21.2.2008 passed in W.P.No.4457/2007 and held H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A that tbe adult sons are not entitled for allotment of land as per
the R & R Policy. However, the High Court vide its impugned
judgment had already disposed of the writ petition with the
following directions:
"(i) We hold that there has been substantial compliance of
B
paragraphs 3.2(a) and 3.2 (b) of the Rehabilitation Policy
which provides for allotment of agricultural land,
government or private, to the displaced families and there
is no violation of fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed
under Article 21 _of the Constitution and, therefore, no
c direction need be given by this court in this regard;
(ii) We hold that SRG amount together with compensation
paid to the displaced families computed on the basis of
average sale price per acre prevalent in the year 1997-
D 98 was sufficient to enable the displaced families to
purchase as much land was acl]uired from them under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 an.d no decision can be given
by the Court to the Respondents/State to pay SRG amount
on the basis of average sale price of the year 2001-02,
E this being a policy matter;
(iii) We direct that every son who had become a major on
or before the date of notification under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act, but who was part of larger family from
whom land has been acquired will be treated as a
F separate displaced family and would be allotted agricultural
land as per paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Rehabilitation Policy
for the Man Project and in case he d~ not opt for land
in accordance with paragraph 5 of Rehabilitation Policy,
will be paid SRG in addition to compensation under Land
G Acquisition Act, in accordance with notification dated
7.3.2002 of Gov!!rnment of Madhya Pradesh, Narmada
Valley Development Authority, by the Respondents within
four months from today;
H (iv) We hold that the definition of 'displaced family' in
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 547
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN_ SUDHA MISRA, J.]
paragraph 1(b) of the Rehabilitation Policy does not A
discriminate against women and is not violative of Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution, but women v1ho are included
in the definition of "displaced persons" will be given those
benefits under the Rehabilitation Policy by the Respondents
which are to be given to "displaced persons; B
(v) We hold that respondents were not entitled to deduct
the amount of compensation payable for trees and wells
located on the land of oustees as determined under the
award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from C
the SRG amount paid to the oustees and we direct the
respondents to refund such compensation amount to the
oustees with interest @ 9 per cent per annum calculated
from the date on which the amount was deducted till the
date on which the amount was deducted till the date on
which refund in made to them." D
10. The State of Madhya Pradesh which was respondent
in the writ petition before the High Court feeling aggrieved by
the decision of the High Court have filed this appeal arising out
of the SLP No. 30685/2009 under Article 136 of the E
Constitution challenging directions Nos. (iii) and (v) issued by
the High Court.
11. The respondents/displaced persons on the other hand
are also aggrieved of the directions of the High Court given out
F
at para Nos. (ii) and (iv) and have therefore separately filed
Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (C) No.10163/2010,
wherein they have essentially challenged the directions of the
High Court by which it has declined to grant the relief to the
petitioners seeking a direction for each displaced family. But
specifically, the directions of the High Court in paragraph No. G
37 (i) (ii) and (iv) of the impugned order and also partially the
portion of direction No. 37 (iii) which directs payment of SRG
in lieu of land entitlements in paragraphs (iii) and (v) of R
and R Policy to adult sons of cultivators as well as failure of
the High Court to pass directions with regard to relief at clause H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A 9 of the writ petition is under challenge at the instance of the
petitioner Bheru Singh and others against the aforesaid
directions.
12. The State of Madhya Pradesh in this appeal has
primarily raised substantial questions of law as to whether the
8
Hon'ble High Court has erred in law in holding that every son
who had become major on or before the date of notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is entitled for
separate allotment of land in spite of the fact that the issue
C regarding the allotment of land to adulVmajor son was pending
consideration before the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme
Court by its interim order directed that the applications
pertaining to allotment of land to major son of oustees will not
be disposed of or decided by GRA till issue is decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
D
13. The question has further been raised as to whether the
High Court has erred in holding whether the major son is a
'displaced family' or a 'displaced person' contrary to the R &
R Policy if he had not been cultivating land for at least one year
E before the date of publication of notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act specially if he had not been
cultivating the land in the capacity of the land owner in absence
of which he would merely be a labourer.
14. Further question which has been raised at the instance
F of State of Madhya Pradesh is whether the High Court has
erred in directing the petitioner to refund compensation payable
for trees and wells located on the land of the outstees with
interest at the rate of 9 per cent without appreciating the basic
genesis of the provisions of SRG. Still further, the question
G which has been raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh is
whether the High Court has erred in directing the appellant
State of Madhya Pradesh to allot separate land to the major
sons of the oustees of the Man Dam in spite of the fact that
the appellant-State has substantially complied with the
H provisions of the rehabilitation policy and there is no violation
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 549
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
of right of livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India A
and the objective of the Rehabilitation Policy has already been
achieved.
15. Learned senior counsel Shri P .S. Patwalia,
representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, while assailing the B
impugned directions of the High Court has first of all raised
some preliminary issues. At the outset, it was stated that a
three Judge Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated
11.5.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.2082/2011 reported in
(2011) 7 sec 639 had set aside the judgment and order dated
21.2.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ C
Petition No.4457/2007 and it was pleased to hold that the adult
sons are entitled for allotment of land as per the R & R Policy.
16. As already stated earlier, the State of Madhya Pradesh
had constituted a Grievance Redressal Authority ('GRA' for D
short) by order dated 11.6.2002 to hear the grievances of the
oustees of Man Project also and in the year 2003-2004, the
construction of the Man Dam was complete. Thereafter, 337
families out of 386 families had accepted SRG and out of the
remaining 49 families, 26 families approached GRA for the E
allotment of land but their claim was rejected as they had
already accepted the full cash compensation. This prompted
the oustees in the year 2007 to file a writ petition bearing
No.4457/2007 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which
gave rise to Civil Appeal No. 2082/2011 which was heard and F
decid3d by a three Judge Bench vide its judgment and order
dated 11.5.2011 reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639. As a
consequence thereof, the three Judge Bench of this Court set
aside the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed in Writ
Petition No. 4457/2007 and was pleased to hold that the adult G
sons are not entitled for allotment of separate holding of land
as per the R & R Policy.
17. It appears that the controversy did not set at rest
even after this judgment as writ petition No. 48/2004 was filed
by the respondent-Bheru Singh and others by way of a public H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 1 S.C.R.
A interest litigation and the said writ petition was disposed of by
judgment and order dated 11.8.2009 which is under challenge
herein issuing certain directions quoted hereinbefore. As
already stated, the State of Madhya Pradesh is aggrieved by
some of the directions recorded hereinbefore and the oustees-
8 Bheru Singh and others also are aggrieved in view of some
other directions quoted hereinbefore. As such they have also
filed an appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 10163 of 2010. But
this contention of the Respondent-Bheru Singh and Ors. who
are Petitioners/Appellants in their appeal are common which
c shall be recorded and dealt with later at the appropriate stage.
18. However, while dealing with the submissions and
contentions of learned counsel for the Appellant-State of M.P.,
it is necessary to record the submissions of the counsel for the
appellant, State of M.P. who, while assailing the impugned
D directions of the High Court, first of all submitted that vague
pleadings have been incorporated in the writ petition including
multiple cause of action. It was submitted that a reading of
the case of the respondent-Bheru Singh who was petitioner in
the High Court would show that the petitioner challenged 426
E different orders passed by the GRA without any factual basis.
No factual details have been laid down in the petition either
by giving facts relating to each of those cases or the
circumstance under which the orders were passed.
Commenting upon the contents of the writ petition, it was
F pointed out that the !Jetition is claimed to have been filed on
behalf of several thousand persons but there is no proper
affidavit supporting the petition of any individual on whose
behalf it is purported to have been filed. The petition contains
a vague allegation of non-compliance of R & R Policy which
G is actually a roving enquiry. It was submitted at this stage
that this PIL was liable to be rejected by the High Court at the
very threshold for want of proper pleadings and material to
substantiate the averments/allegations contained therein.
19. However, the learned Judges of the High Court took
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 551
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
notice of the fact that the Court had to strike a balance between A
the interest of the parties in a PIL and had to take into
consideration the pitiable conditions of oustees, their poverty,
inarticulateness, illiteracy, extent of backwardness and
unawareness also. However, the High Court should have taken
note of the observation wherein it was observed that in future B
it was desirable that the Court must view presentation of any
matter by the NBA with caution and care insisting on proper
pleadings, disclosure of full facts truly and fairly and should
insist for an affidavit of some responsible person in support
of facts contained therein. It was submitted that in view of this c
observation, the petition was fit to be dismissed as the same
lacked material particulars being completely vague which was
not supported by a proper affidavit and was, therefore, liable
to be rejected at the threshold.
20. Learned counsel then raised the question of delay and D
!aches on the part of the petitioner-Bheru Singh who is
respondent in the main appeal as it was stated that the writ
petition was filed by the respondent-Bheru Singh at a time
when the Man Dam had already been completely constructed.
It was thus an effort to upset a settled state of affairs at such a E
belated stage which has an upsetting effect on settled society.
Such a belated petition was, therefore, liable to be rejected on
the ground of !aches and delay specially when this issue has
already been dealt with by the lllrd Narmada judgment which
is reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639. F
21. In so far as the contentions of the counsel for the State
of Madhya Pradesh in regard to the main directions are
concerned, it is the case of the State of M.P. that the R & R
Policy prescribes a comprehensive scheme as to who is G
entitled for land and simultaneously how the cost of land to be
allotted is recoverable by the State. Clause 3.2(a) specifically
envisages that it is only a displaced family from whom more
than 25% of its land have been acquired who is entitled for
land. This loss of land is the pre-requisite to create entitlement.
H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A The scheme then continues under Clause 5.1 which envisages
that the cost of acquired land is to be made out of the
compensation payable for the land which one has lost. Thus,
if a person does not lose any land then he is not entitled to any
compensation and would not be able to pay for the land for
B which he is not covered by the R & R Policy. However, this
does not mean that an adult son who is treated as a separate
family is not entitled to any benefit in the policy. He still gets a
number of benefits for which a family is entitled under Clause
6.1, 7.1 and 8.1 of the R & R Policy.
c 22. Elaborating on the question involved, it was next
submitted that under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 the adult son who has become major on or before the
date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
is considered to be a separate family and clause 3 of the R &
D R also provides for allotment of land in lieu of land. Clause
3.2(a) provides for every displaced family including major son
from whom more than 25% of its land holding is acquired in
revenue villages or forest villages shall be entitled to and as
far as possible the land to the extent of the land acquired from
E it. This loss of land is essential before one can become entitled
to land for land from the State Government. Reiterating the
submission, it was submitted that as per Clause 3.2(a) of the
R & R Policy, adult son will be entitled for land as far as possible
only if some land belonging to him as on date of the Section
f 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was actually
acquired from him and clause 5 of the R & R Policy provides
for recovery of the cost of allotted land.
23. Learned counsel appearing the appellant-State of
G Madhya Pradesh further invited the attention of this Court to
certain important features of the R & R Policy in order to
impress upon this Court that the oustees have been duly
compensated for the acquired land with beneficial schemes
incorporated therein. It was stated that clause 5.1 of the R &
R Policy provides that 50 of the compensation for the acquired
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 553
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
land was permitted to be retained as initial instalment towards A
payment of the cost of the land to be allotted to the oustees.
Clauses 5.2 and 5.3 further provided that the balance cost of
the allotted land will be treated as interest free land to be
recovered within 20 equal yearly instalments and clause 5.1
provided that if the displaced family did not wish to obtain land 8
in lieu of land and claim full payment of the compensation, they
could do so but with a rider that this option once exercised,
the displaced families could not lay any claim for land
afterwards. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel
that if impugned direction of he High Court in the judgment C
and order under challenge dated 11.8.2009 directing to allot
land to each and every major son irrespective of the fact
whether any land was acquired from them or not, would make
the clauses 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of R & R Policy as inoperative. It
was contended that if nc land was acquired from the adult son
as a separate land holder then how would the cost of the land D
be recovered from them.
24. Learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh in
order to reinforce his submission on the aforesaid aspects first
of all placed reliance on the judgment and order reported in E
(2000)10 SCC 664 commonly referred to as first Narmada
judgment wherein this Court (Supreme Court) has held that the
rehabilitation and resettlement packages in the three states
were different due to geographical and economic conditions
and availability of the land. The States have liberalised their F
policies and decided to allot land to adult son and daughter
over and above the NWDT Award. Heavy reliance has been
placed by the counsel on the judgment of this Court reported
in (2011) 7 SCC 639 referred to as lllrd Narmada judgment
wherein this Court has examined the R & R Policy of the State G
of Madhya Pradesh and inter alia has held that the issue has
to be decided by strict adherence to the amended R & R Policy
in view of which all adult sons of a displaced family is not entitled
for allotment of separate unit of land as it would lead to absurd
results and unjust enrichment at the expense of the State H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 1 S.C.R.
A exchequer. The relevant paragraph specifically states as
follows:
"96. The rehabilitation has to be done to the extent of the
displacement. The rehabilitation is compensatory in nature
with a view to ensure that the oustee and his family are at
8 least restored to the status that was existing on the date
of the commencement of the proceedings under the 1894
Act. There was no intention on behalf of the State to have
awarded more land treating a major son to be a separate
unit. This would otherwise bring about an anomaly, as is
c evident from the chart that has been gainfully reproduced
hereinabove. The idea of rehabilitation was, therefore, not
to distribute largesse of the State that may reflect
distribution totally disproportionate to the extent of the land
acquired. The State has, therefore, rightly resisted this
D demand of the writ petitioners and, in our opinion, for the
High Court to presuppose or assume a separate unit for
each major son far above the land acquired, was neither
justified nor legally sustainable."
E 25. It was submitted that the Supreme Court while further
examining and scrutinizing the clauses 3.2, 5.1 and other
provisions of the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. as also that
allotment of land to adult son from whom no land is acquired,
will amount to unjust enrichment which is against the law.
F 26. In order to add further weight to the submission, it was
submitted that in fact the Ill rd Narmada judgment (2011) 7
sec 639 has examined the issues in detail after which it
was concluded that if the interpretation is sought to be given
by the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the same is accepted,
G it would lead to absurd results, for instance, if a family of three
joint khatedars have 3-4 sons losing only 2 hectares of land
and each major son would claim 2 hectares separately, then
the family would end up getting 26 hectares of land. It was
contended that this was never the intention of the R & R
H Policy and the conclusion drawn by three Judge Bench
.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 555
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.)
cannot be overlooked. Thus the entire emphasis of the A.
appellant-State of M.P. is on the three Judge Bench of (2011)
7 SC 639 as also other judgments reported in (2000) 10 SCC
664, (2005) 4 SCC 32 which has incorporated the NWDT
Award. But it was also submitted that the 2005 judgment
interpreting the NWDT Award which has no application to the B
R & R Policy of the State of M.P. in regard to the displaced
persons of the Man Dam Project.
27. Learned counsel submitted that in the first place there
is, in fact, no discordant note between the !Ind Narmada C
judgment reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32 and lllrd Narmada
judgment reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639. In fact, it was
contended that the llnd Narmada judgment interpreting NWDT
Award relates to an inter state project rather than R & R Policy
of the State of M.P. while the issue before the lllrd Narmada
judgment was interpretation of the $tate Policy i.e. R & R D
Policy which was not an issue for cons\deration by the Hon'ble
Judges delivering the llnd and lllrd Narmada judgment
reported in (2000) 10 sec 664 and (2005) 4 sec 32.
According to the learned counsel . the llnd Narmada judgment
contained an inadvertent error as it refers only to a particular E
paragraph (para 176) of the 1st Narmada judgment reported in
(2000) 10 sec 664 without considering the importance of
other paragraphs at paragraphs 152 and 156. In paragraph
152, it was categorically noted by the 1st Narmada judgment
that all states except Madhya Pradesh in that case were ready F
to give land to major sons and on this account the Court
observed whether this inadvertent error should be allowed to
perpetuate if the policy states otherwise.
28. Placing reliance on the lllrd Narmada judgment G
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 holding therein that under the R
& R Policy there is no entitlement of land for land for major
son, it was submitted that this finding recorded by three
Hon'ble Judges Bench after noticing and interpreting the
earlier judgments i.e. (2000) 10 SCC 664, (2005) 4 SCC 32 H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A would be binding on the present Bench comprising of two
Hon'ble Judges and hence the views expressed therein should
hold the field in this appeal/matter also filed by the State of
M.P. It was contended that a fresh interpretation of the R & R
Policy to the extent of giving land to major son would result in
B a total arbitrary implementation of the policy has not been
approved by the Bench of three Judges vide (2011) 7 SCC
639 and in case this Court found that there were divergence
of views in the judgment referred to hereinbefore and relied
upon by the State of M.P., the matter mav be referred to a
c larger bench. If this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion
that there are divergent views of co-strength bench on the issue
of the allotment of land to adult son in (2000) 10 SCC 664 Is!
Narmada Judgment and (2005) 4 SCC 32- llnd Narmada
judgment and (2011) 7 SCC 639-lllrd Narmada judgment.
D 29. In so far as the impugned direction of the High Court
concluding that value of trees and wells could not have been
deducted from the amount payable as SRG, it was submitted
that compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is to be
determined as per Section 23 of the said Act and apart from
E the market rate, value of the land, the damage sustained by
taking standing crops or trees is part of compensation as
also the damage sustained by person interested on account
of loss of land. Thus loss of trees and wells is part of
compensatior1ptaid under the Land Acquisition Act and the
F formula for calculating SRG is given in two Government orders
dated 31.2.2002 which is a generaf order and dated 7.3.2002
which is a specific order for the Man Dam Project. It was
submitted that once compensation payable under the Land
Acquisition Act is to be deducted then the same would include
G the complete compensation paid for the land, trees, wells,
solatium, interest etc. and, therefore, it was submitted that the
finding of the High Court on this issue is liable to be reversed.
Reliance was also placed on the ratio of the decision reported
in (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 637 State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan
H Singh and Anr. wherein this Court had held that it is well settled
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 557
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
law that the Collector or the Court who determined the A
compensation forthe land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot
determine them separately as the compensation is in regard
to the value of the acquired land.
30. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel representing
respondent -Bheuru Singh & Ors. - who was the petitioner in B
the High Court and are also appellant in the connected appeal,
refuted the contentions of the counsel for the State of M.P. and
first of all referred to the relevant provisions of R & R Policy
relating to displaced family. He has, therefore, extracted the
relevant provisions in this regard for ready reference which is C
as follows:-
"1.1 (b) Displaced Family-(i) A family composed of
displaced persons as defined above shall include husband,
wife and minor children and other persons dependent on o
the head of the family, eg. 'Nidowed mother, widowed
sister, unmarried daughter or old father.
(ii) Every son/un-married daughter who has become major
on or before the date of Notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, will be treated as a separate family." E
3.2 (a) Every displaced family from whom more than 25
percent of its land is acquired in revenue villages or forest
villages shall be entitled to the extent of land acquired from
it, and shall be allotted such land, subject to provision in F
3.2 below.
(b) A minimum area of 2 ha. of land would be allotted to
all the families whose lands would be acquired irrespective
of whether government land is offered or private land is G
purchased for allotment. Where more than 2 ha. of land is
acquired from a family, it will be allotted equal and, subject
to a ceiling of 8 ha.
(c) The governmenf'Will assist displaced families in
H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S C.R.
A providing irrigation by well/tube-well or any other method
on the land allotted, provided such land is not already
irrigated ... "
31. Relying on the aforesaid provision it was contended
that under the R & R Policy every joint land holder is treated
B as a displaced family and is entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares
of land. So if there are three joint land holders in a joint land
holding they will each be entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares
of land. While explaining this, it was stated that if the name of
the adult son had been recorded on the title as a joint land
C holder, he would have been entitled to 2 hectares of land as a
land holder had the acquired land been partitioned prior to
acquisition, the adult son whose family land held in the name
of the head of the family is being acquired and who undisputedly
has rights on the land had he been recorded as joint title holder,
D he would have been entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land
each. It was, therefore, submitted that it would be discriminatory
to deny the opportunity to obtain a viable livelihood after
displacement to the adult sons who have rights on these lands
simply because there was no partition due to customary
E practices. It was sought to be explained that this is the tribal
area where culturally lands are not partitioned till the death of
the head of the family. Thus many of the adults sons are
themselves very old. It was submitted that in fact para 2.1 of
the R & R Policy expressly required that all relevant land
F records would be brought up to date expeditiously for ensuring
adequate compensation and allotment of land to displaced
persons. However, the same was never done. It was
contended that if the land records had been updated, the adult
sons would have been included in the land records as joint
G holders and would have been entitled to a minimum of 2
hectares of land in their own right. The State Government in
order to conclude the matter formulated the provision that every
adult son will be treated as a separate family.
32. It was still further submitted that the vision of the R &
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 559
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
. R Policy that every family dependent on land facing force A
displacement, which has to severe its link with family lands
hitherto relied on, must be provided a viable land based
livelihood on a minimum viable land holding 2 hectares of land
which would be entirely in consonance with the socialist vision
of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights and Directive B
Principles of State Policy. The minimum entitlement of 2
hectares of land is also in consonance with the vision of the
planning process indicating national development which
requires both the victims and the beneficiaries of such product
to become better off from the project and project resources. It c
was submitted that this Court has also emphatically taken
the view that the oustees on development projects must be
made better off after their displacement at project cost and as
per the R & R Policy framed by the Government under Article
21 of the Constitution. It was. also submitted that the R & R D
Policy of the Government of Madhya Pradesh requires the
allotment of land even to encroachers. The State of M.P. also
has programme for the allotment of land to landless SC and
ST families. Thus the well considered provisions of the R & R
Policy which require the allotment of a minimum of 2 hectares E
of land to the adult sons of cultivators whose family land is
being acquired as separate families is a valuable part of the
social-economic programme part designed to meet goals of
the Constitution.
33. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for F
the appellant-State of M.P., Mr. Bhushan submitted that the
provisions for the treatment of adult sons as a separate family
for the allotment of a minimum of 2 hectares of land is the same
under the NWDT .Award and the R & R Policy of the State.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the llnd Narmada G
judgment of High Court for the definition of 'adult son' as
separate family1and allotment of land reported in (2005) 4 sec
132. It was submitted that as per the definition of oustee, an
oustee means any person who at least one·year prior to the
bublication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act has H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A been ordinarily residing or cultivating land or carrying on any
trade, occupation or calling or working for gain in the area likely
to be submerged permanently or temporarily and the definition
of family includes husband, wife and minor children and other
persons dependent on the head of the family, for example,
B widowed mother.
34. Learned counsel for the respondent/appellant in the
connected appeal also submitted that in fact the R & R Policy
was formulated by adopting the provisions of the NWDT
Award which may be seen from the minutes of the meeting
C dated 9.6.1987 of the Committee of Secretaries which
formulated the R & R Policy. The High Court in the impugned
judgment has also held that the State Government adopted
similar definition of displaced family in the R & R Policy as is
present in the NWDT Award. It was, therefore, submitted that
D the provisions of the NWDT Award and the R & R Policy are
in pari materia on the basis of which it has been contended
that the view taken by the learned Judges in the llnd Narmada
judgment reported in (2005) 4 sec 32, adult sons of cultivators
are entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land as separate
E families wherein the specific question was considered as to
whether adult sons of cultivators are entitled to a minimum of
2 hectares of land as per the NWDT Award. Learned counsel
specifically referred to the question which was considered in
(2005) 4 sec 32 judgment which is quoted as follows:-
F
"Whether adult sons are entitled to a minimum of 2
hectares of land as per NWDT Award and judgment of
this Court?"
35. Learned counsel placed reliance on certain portions
G of the judgment which was follows:-
"59. The definition of family indisputably includes major
sons. A plain reading of the said definition clearly shows
that even where a major son of the land-holder did not
possess land separately, he would be entitled to grant of
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 561
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J)
a separate holding. A
64. One major son comes within the purview of expansive
definition of family, it would be idle to contend that the
scheme of giving 'land for land' would be applicable to only
those major sons who were landholders in their own rights
8
if a person was a landholder, he in his own right would be
entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation scheme and, thus,
for the said purpose, an expansive definition of family was
not necessarily to be rendered. Furthermore, if such a
meaning is attributed as has been suggested by Mr.
Vaidyanathan, the definition of 'family' to an extent would C
become obscure. As a major son constitutes 'separate
family' within the interpretation clause of 'family' no
meaning thereto can be given."
36. Placing reliance on the aforesaid portion of the D
judgment of this Court, it was submitted that this Hon'ble Court
has decisively interpreted the treatment of adult sons as
separate family and relying on similar provisions for treatment
of adult sons as separate family and for allotment of a
minimum of 2 hectares of land in the NWDT Award and the R
E
& R Policy, the High Court vide its impugned judgment has
rightly held that the oustees of the Man Dam Project are also
entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land as per the R & R
Policy. It was submitted that the judgment and order dated
15.3.2005 of this Court was accepted and fully implemented
by an order of the State Government dated 16.6.2005 by
F
providing benefits to several thousands adults sons which may
be seen from the order of the State Government dated
16.6.2005 which states that it is in compliance of judgment
and order of this Hon'ble Court dated 15.3.2005 holding that
in the case of cultivators losing more than 25% of the land, the G
adult sons will be entitled to 2 hectares of land and while
computing the SRG for adult sons, the previous compensation
will be taken to be zero.
37. It was next contended on behalf of the oustees/ H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R
A Respondents that in this case, the State has relied on the
reasonings of the judgment and order of a three Member Bench
dated 11.5.2011 reported in (2011) 7 sec 639 referred to as
Ill rd Narmada judgment in order to challenge the finding of the
judgment and order dated 11.8.2009 reported in (2005) 4 sec
B 32 i.e. !Ind Narmada judgment with regard to land allotment to
adult sons which is not legally permissible and in case this court
finds conflicting judgment the matter may be referred to a
Larger Bench.
38. While considering the rival submissions of the counsel
C for the contesting parties in both the appeals, it is manifestly
clear that the principal contentious issue between the State of
Madhya Pradesh and the displaced persons/oustees is in
regard to the claim of land for each major son of the land
holders family as according to the oustees, the definition of
D displaced family in paragraph 1(b) of the R & R Policy
discloses that every son who has become major on or before
the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, will be treated as a separate family. As already noted,
this has given rise to several rounds of litigation in the High
E Court of Madhya Pradesh due to which three judgments have
been delivered by this Court and for facility of reference they
have been termed as Narmada Bachao Andolan Isl, Narmada
Bacaho Andolan llnd and Narmada Bachao Andolan lllrd
judgments. However, in Narmada Bachoa Andolan I, the
F question of entitlement of land in favour of each major son of
the family was neither considered but Narmada Bachao
Andolan II reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32, the question clearly
came up for consideration regarding entitlement of land by
major sons which according to the learned three Judge Bench
G indisputably includes major sons in view of the definition of
family. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the said matter
observed that even on a plain reading of the definition, 1t clearly
shows that even where a major son of the land holder did not
possess land separately, he would be entitled to grant of
H separate holding. It was held that the definition of 'family'
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR v. BHERU 563
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
has to be read along with that of ' oustee' and it was noted A
that 'outsee family' and 'displaced family' have
interchangeably been used in the award. It was, therefore,
observed that they thus carry the same meaning. This Court
also took notice of paragraph 152 of the main judgment i.e.
Naramda Bachao Andolan I judgment wherein this Court B
noticed that every affected family must be allotted land, house,
plot and other amenities and this was in terms of the tribunal's
award wherein it was held that the sons who had become
major on or prior to the issuance of notification of Land
Acquisition Act were entitled to be allotted land and since the c
interpretation clause used an inclusive definition, it would be
expansive in nature. It was, therefore, held that as follows:
"Once major son comes within the purview of the
expansive definition of family, it would be idle to contend
that the scheme of giving "land for land" would be D
applicable to only those major sons who were landholders
in their own rights. If a person was a landholder, he in his
own right would be entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation
scheme and, thus, for the said purpose, an expansive
definition of family was not necessarily to be rendered. E
Furthermore, if such a meaning is attributed as has been
suggested by Mr. Vaidyanathan, the definition of "family"
would to an extent become obscure. As a major son
constitutes "separate family" within the interpretation clause
of "family", no meaning thereto can be given .......... The F
court further observed that the award provided that every
displaced family whose 25% or more agricultural land
holding hs been acquired , shall be entitled to be allotted
irrigable land to the extent of land acquired subject to
prescribed ceiling of the State with a minimum of 2 G
hectares of land."
39. Thus in view of this judgment the respondent oustees
could have approached the Grievance Redressal Authority
(GRA) for allotment of land in terms of the judgment if they felt
that the GRA was not examining the grievance in the light of H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A the law laid down by this Court in the llnd Narmada Judgment
(2005) 4 SCC 32. However, the oustees respondents Bheru
Singh and others instead of approaching the G.R.A.
approached the High court by way of a writ petition No. 48/2004
in which judgment was delivered by the Division Bench on
B 11.8.2009 out of which these appeals arise and in this judgment
the learned Judges followed the judgment and order of the llnd
Narmada Bachao Andolan referred to hereinabove as the
subsequent lllrd judgment of 2011 (Supra) had not been
delivered by that time. Hence the High Court was pleased to
c hold vide the impugned judgment that although there has been
substantial compliance of R & R Policy which provides for
allotment of agricultural land government or private to the
displaced family and there is no violation of fundamental right
to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, it
D was further pleased to direct that every son who had become
major on or before the date of notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act but who was part of their family from
whom land had been acquired will be treated as a separate
displaced family and would be allotted agricultural land in
accordance with paragraph 3 and 5 of the R & R Policy for
E the Man Dam Project and in case he does not opt land for land
in accordance with paragraph 5 of the R & R Policy, he will be
paid Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) in addition to the
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act in accordance
with the order dated 7.3.2002 of the Government of Madhya
F Pradesh Narmada Valley Development Authority by the
respondents within four months from that date.
40. As already stated, the State of Madhya Pradesh and
the oustee respondents Nos. 1 & 2 along with social activist
G respondent No.3 filed separate special leave petition in this
Court on 9.11.2009 and 1.2.2010. But it appears that in the
meantime, another appeal had been entertained by this Court
bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 2115-2116/2011 arising out of an
interim order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
H writ petition No.4457/2007 entitled Narmada Bachao Ando/an
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 565
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the High Court as an A
interim measure had issued direction inter alia for allotment
of agricultural land to the displaced persons in lieu of the land
acquired for the construction of the dam in terms of the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy as amended on
3.7.2003. The High Court direction applied even to those 8
oustees who had already withdrawn the compensation if such
oustees opted for such land and refund 50% of the
compensation amount received by them. The balance cost of
the allotted land was to be deposited by the allottee in 20 equal
yearly instalments as per clause 5.3 of the R & R Policy and it C
further directed to treat a major son of the family whose land
had been acquired as a separate family for the purpose of
allotment of agricultural land. During the pendency of the
appeals of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the respondents,
the judgment and order was delivered by a Bench of three
Judges of this Court wherein the question of entitlement of D
each major son of a displaced family was taken into
consideration and it was observed therein that the
rehabilitation has to be done to the extent of the
displacement. It was further held that rehabilitation was
compensatory in nature with a view to ensure that the oustee E
and his family are at least restored to the status that was
existing on the date of commencement of the proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There was no intention
on behalf of the State to have awarded more land treating a
major son to be a separate unit. It was further observed that F
the idea of rehabilitation was not to distribute largesse of the
State that may reflect distribution of total disproportionate to
the extent of land acquired and therefore, the State had rightly
registered this demand of the oustee~ writ petitioners directing
a separate unit for each major son for the above land acquired, G
was neither justified nor legally permissible. It was, therefore,
held that in effect the major son wouid not be entitled to
anything additional as his separate share in the original holding
and it will not get enhanced by the fiction definition. as stated
in the impugned judgment. The major sons, however. would H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 1 S.C.R.
A be entitled to his share in the area which is to be allotted to
the tenure holder on rehabilitation in case he is entitled to such
share in the land applicable to the particular State.
41. On perusal of the ratio of the two decisions of this
Court referred to hereinabove viz. 2005 (4) SCC 32 and (2011)
B 7 3CC 639, they undoubtedly appear to be in conflict with each
other in regard to the claim of share by each major son of the
family of land holder whose land has been acquired. This
Court, therefore, is clearly confronted with two conflicting views
on the claim of entitlement of a major son for a separate share
C in the land holders family and in view of this it would have been
a fit case for reference of this matter before a Constitution
Bench of 5 Judges for determination of the question as to
whether all major sons of a displaced family would be.entitled
to 2 hectares of land in view of the R & R Policy of the State of
D M.P.
42. But on a careful consideration of the matter, it is
manifestly clear that the dispute between the State of M.P. and
the displaced family on the question of entitlement of a major
E son do not arise out of a statute like the Land Acquisition Act.
1894 or the Hindu Succession Act or Land Ceiling Act or any
other similar Act in order to treat the issue as the purely a legal
controversy giving rise to a conflicting situation regarding the
entitlement of land to a major son of a family which would give
rise for determination of the question as to whether all major
F sons of the land holders family who might be constituting joint
family would be entitled to 2 hectares of land separately or only
through the main land holder of a displaced family in order to
be entitled to 2 hectares of land arising out of a Policy decision.
This marathon exercise that have been done giving rise to
G repeated rounds of litigation for determination of the question
as to whether major sons would be included in the definition of
the displaced family or not in our view is not really a legal issue
emerging from any statutory provision which needs to be
addressed since the entire issue is merely a question which
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 567
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
arises out of a policy decision of the Government of M.P. and A
at the most would be confined to interpretation of the R & R
Policy formulated by the State of M.P. We, therefore, refrain
from referring this question of entitlement of major son to a
separate holding to a larger Bench as it needs to be highlighted
that this controversy arises out of Policy decision and has B
clearly not emerged from any ambiguity in the Land Acquisition
Act or any statute or an Act having a bearing in future on other
similar controversy so as to refer it to a Constitution Bench of
this Court.
43. Thus, when the claim or entitlement of land is based C
exclusively on a Policy decision of the Government of M.P.
which have been incorporated in the R & R Policy, the
entitlement clearly would be based strictly on the Policy decision
formulated by the Government of M.P. which clearly lays down
as follows: D
"24(/V(l) Allotment of agricultural lands.-Every
displaced family from whom more than 25% of its land
holding is acquired shall be entitled to and be allotted
irrigable land to the extent of land acquired from it subject E
to the prescribed ceiling in the State concerned and. a
minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres) per family .............. "
44. This policy holds a displaced family entitled to 2
hectares of land but it further envisages actual displacement
from the acquired land which is 25% meaning thereby that only F
such displaced family from whom more than 25% of its land
holding has been acquired would be entitled for compensation
of 2 hectares of land from whom land has been acquired and
this displacement from land would notmerely be notional. The
R & R policy unequivocally lays down its entire emphasis on G
acquisition of land from a displaced family and that
displacement also has to be 25% of the land acquired from
the family by the Government. Thus even if the displaced family
had several major sons, allotment on account of acquisition tO'
each major son do not arise in terms of the policy. Even at the H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A risk of repetition it needs to be highlighted that when there has
been no acquisition from each major son of the family, the
question of allotment of land to all major sons of the family
would be clearly contrary to the provision of the R & R Policy.
The entire right of the respondenVoustee in this litigation flows
B from the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. and it is crystal clear
that the redeeming feature of the policy is acquisition of 25%
land of the displaced family. Therefore, even if the displaced
family constituted of several major sons, the acquisition of 25%
of land from each major son is completely missing, and,
C therefore, we do not see any reason as to why we should
allow the parties to be bogged down into further litigation for
determination of the question as to whether all major sons of
a displaced family are entitled to a separate unit of 2 hectares
of land or only the land holder of the displaced family would be
o entitled. Hence, the direction of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh vide its impugned judgment for allotment of land to
each major son of the displaced family needs to be overturned.
45. There is yet another reason for us for disapproving
the direction of the High Court as the High Court, in our view,
E was not justified in entertaining a writ petition by way of public
interest litigation when the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had
already dealt with the question against which the appeal also
travelled upto this Court and was seized of other writ petitions
on the question. In regard to the above question, we take note
F of a decision of this Court in Joydeep Mukharjee vs. State of
West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 706 wherein
. this Court had been pleased to hold that the jurisdiction even
of the Supreme Court:
"in a public interest litigation cannot be pressed into
G service where matters have already been completely and
effectively adjudicated upon not only in individual petitions
but even in writ petitions raising the larger question as was
raised in the earlier writ petition."
H The learned Judges have been pleased to hold that:
h
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 569
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
I
!; principles of finality and fairness demand that there should A
be an end to litigation and it is in public interest that
issues settled by judgment of the court which have
attained finality should not be permitted to be re-agitated
all over again.
46. Taking note of the aforesaid observation fraught with B
wisdom, we are of the view that the High Court was not correct
in entertaining a writ petition all over again by way of a Public
Interest Litigation when the question of implementation of R
& R Policy had been considered and decided by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh earlier giving rise to appeals up to C
this Court. Besides this, the High Court in the impugned
judgment itself has laid down that there had been substantial
compliance of the R & R Policy of the Government of M.P. and
yet it was pleased to direct the respondent-State/appellant
herein to consider the question of allotment of 2 hectares of D
land to each major son of a displaced family overlooking the
fact that if each major son of the displaced family had not been
separately deprived of 25% of the acquired land, then even as
per the Policy, they were not entitled to 2 hectares of land. In
that view of the matter also the direction of the High Court E
travels beyond the scope of R & R Policy. The High Court in
any view had no reason to expand the scope of R & R Policy
by directing the State of M.P. to allot land to each of the
displaced family.
47. However, we are conscious of the fact that in the F
process of allotment, it is quite possible that some of the
oustees might have been deprived of the land who were
separately holding the acquired land. But in order to ensure
effective implementation, there is already a Grievance
Redressal Authority (GRA) and if the oustees have any G
grievance in regard to non-implementation of the R & R Policy
in so far as their entitlement as per the policy is concerned, they
would be free to move the GRA for redressal of their
grievance. But a blanket direction as given out by the High
Court to allot land to each major son of a displaced family H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 1 S.C.R.
A without any averment to the effect that they were deprived of
25% of acquired land separately, the plea that the State of
M.P. should consider their grievance and allot them land
appears to be contrary to the R & R Policy. Acquisition of 25%
of land is a condition precedent to become eligible for
B allotment of 2 hectares of land. We, therefore, feel the need to
clarify that we have not entered into the area of determination
of the question as to whether major son of a family is entitled
to a separate unit or not as in our view even if we were to
follows (2005) 4 sec 32 and were to hold that each major
c son of a displaced family is entitled to a separate unit of
compensatory land, deprivation of 25% of land from them is
totally missing and if that is so, we fail to understand as to
how we can allow the respondents to reopen this question
after four years of revision of R & R Policy. Learned counsel
for the respondent Bheru Singh, no doubt, had submitted that
0
this Court had to take into consideration the indigent status of
the affected parties. But when a social activist takes up the
cause for the oustees, it is expected of them to take a
balanced view of the cause raised on behalf of the affected
E party in the light of the policy which is formulated and made
effective by the State authorities. We undoubtedly also
appreciate the lauc:!able effort made by the social activist taking
up the cause for the rehabilitation of the oustees but in the
process we are under constraint as we cannot overlook the
practical fall out/consequences by allowing them to take up the
F cause of the oustees oblivious of its consequence or the
administrative fall out since a cause cannot be allowed to be
raised incessantly by indulging in multiplicity of proceedings
which at times do more harm to the cause than seek cure for
the misery of the affected parties. In fact, in our view, if anyone
G concerned including an activist genuinely and bona fide feels
·that full justice has not been done to the cause they raised would
do well to use their effort and good offices by persuading the
administrative machinery with the assistance, the leadership for
rectifying the policy decision and getting the matter clarified
H rather than travelling to the court by filing one writ petition after
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 571
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
the other unsettling the settled position by way of fresh rountj A
of litigation in the form of Public Interest Litigation.
48. However, in view of the meticulous analysis of the R &
R Policy in the instant matter in the light of the statement of the
counsel for the parties as also the decisions relied upon by 8
them, we are of the view that the direction of the High Court in
spite of its finding that R & R Policy has been substantially
complied, has gone beyond the ambit of the R & R Policy and
has generated a controversy as to whether all major sons of a
displaced family are entitled to a separate unit of land or not C
under the R & R Policy which has clearly laid emphasis on the
fact that only those displaced families would be entitled to 2
hectares of land from whom 25% of their separate holding of
land had been acquired which inference in our view is the only
inference which can reasonably be drawn from the relevant
provision of the R & R Policy. D
49. However, the counsel for the respondenVappellant
Bheru Singh aRd others have given out large number of factual
details stating that the GRA has committed grave errors while
dealing with the representation and grievance of the oustees E
which is not possible for this Court to examine nor it lies within
the ambit and scope of Article 136 of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, we find substance in the argument advanced that
the oustees/displaced persons come from the weak and
vulnerable tribal population whose plea may get ignored or are F
not properly addressed. Hence for this purpose and in order
to impart full justice to the cause in terms of the R & R Policy,
it is desirable that the State Government may constitute an
appellate forum where the aggrieved party may challenge the
decision of the GRA in case there is any justifiable reason to G
do so. This appellate forum in our view should include a sitting
. or retired District Judge and an administrative member under
the Chairmansllip of a retired Judge of the High Court which
will oversee whether the R & R Policy has been effectively and
accurately implemented and whether the SRG have been
H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.
A properly distributed in the light of the grievance raised by the
displaced persons. This appellate forum in our view appears
to be essential in order to supervise and oversee by way of an
appellate forum and hear the grievance of the affected
displaced persons arising out of implementation of the R & R
B Policy and SRG as also to ventilate the grievances of affected
persons. However, this appellate forum shall not enter into any
question relating to interpretation ofthe R & R Policy but by and
large examine whether the benefit of the R & R Policy has been
allowed to be availed by the oustees or not. In effect it would
c confine itself to the questions relating to compliance of the
R & R Policy and distribution of Special Rehabilitation Grant
(SRG) in terms of the provisions enumerated therein.
50. As a consequence of the above analysis, deliberation
and consideration, the appeal arising out of special leave
D petition(c) No.30685/09 of the State of Madhya Pradesh stands
allowed and the appeal arising out of special leave petition
(c) 10163/2010 of the oustees is disposed of with liberty to the
respondents-oustees to approach the GRA or the Appellate
Forum of GRA in case they have been deprived of adequate
E compensation or benefit in any manner which is not in
consonance with the R & R Policy. We further grant liberty to
the respondents including the social activist-Respondent No.3
to take up the matter before the Government of M.P. for
rectification or further amendment of the Policy in case they
F are able to establish and make out a case that the re,'(ision of
R & R Policy 2003 still further requires rectification or
improvement as there can be no limitation of time for reviewing
or reframing a Policy decision if it has to serve the cause of
eradicating human suffering specially if it has emerged as a
G consequence of the state activity like the land acquisition where
the affected parties lost their home and cultivable land.
However, under the circumstance, there shall be no order as
to costs.
R.P. Appeals disposed of.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search