Holding

Canal‑affected persons cannot be treated on par with oustees of submergence; they are not covered by the definition of "oustee" and therefore are not entitled to the same R&R package, though they may receive supplementary compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Summary

After the completion of the Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar dams, the Madhya Pradesh government initiated land acquisition for canal construction under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Medha Patkar and other petitioners challenged the acquisition, arguing that the Command Area Development (CAD) plans had not been submitted to or approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, that the PESA Act required prior Panchayat consultation, and that canal‑affected persons should receive the same rehabilitation and resettlement benefits as those displaced by submergence. The High Court held that canal‑affected persons were entitled to the same benefits, a view the State appealed. The Supreme Court held that the definition of "oustee" under the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal award does not include canal‑affected persons and that they cannot be placed on par with submergence‑affected persons, but allowed the State to make supplementary awards by treating the Section‑4 notification date as the date of the judgment and recomputing market value under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court also clarified that any further canal work must obtain MoEF clearance. The appeal was disposed of, with the State directed to award the supplementary compensation and to seek environmental clearance for future work.

Issues considered

The adequacy of CAD plans and their approval by the Ministry of Environment and Forests before land acquisition for canals
Whether canal‑affected persons are entitled to the same rehabilitation and resettlement benefits as oustees of submergence under the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal award and the R&R Policy
Compliance with the PESA Act in land acquisition within scheduled areas

Legislation cited

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 3(2)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 3, s. 4
Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996s. 3, s. 4

Subjects

land acquisitioncanal affected personsrehabilitation and resettlementNarmada Valley projectsenvironmental clearancePESA Actcommand area development planscompensationsupplementary awardSupreme Court

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 664

A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR
v.
MEDHA PATKAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 2011)

AUGUST 2, 2011
•
B
[J.M. PANCHAL, DEEPAK VERMA AND
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

LAND ACQUISITION:
c
Acquisition of land to set up canals - Compensation -
'Canal affected persons' - After construction of Indira Sagar
Project and Omkareshwar Dam, land acquired for setting up
canals - Writ petition claiming full benefits of Rehabilitation
..
0 and Resettlement Policy framed for Narmada Valley Projects,
for canal affected persons also - Held: This Court in Narmada
Bachao Ando/an-I has held that 'canal affected persons'
cannot be put at par with 'submergence affected persons' - It
was not permissible for the High Court to take a contrary view
E - The definition of 'oustee' under the Narmada Water Dispute
Tribunal Award does not take within its ambit the 'canal
affected person' nor does the said award apply to the projects
in the instant case - However, in the interim order, Supreme
Court has taken care of 'hardship cases' - Further, as
suggested by the State Government, the date of s. 4
F notification shifted to the date of the instant judgment in
relation to the canal affected persons and the Land Acquisition
Collector directed to reconsider the market value of the land
in question accordingly and make supplementary awards in
accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act -
G It is clarified that the further canal work would be subject to
clearance which may be given by MoEF - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 - Public Interest litigation - Precedent.

On completion of Indira Sagar Project and
H 664
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 665
PATKAR & ORS.
Omkareshwar dam, in order to set up canals, land A
acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 18994 were initiated. The respondents
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the
acquisition of land for construction of canals on the
grounds, inter-a/ia, that Command Area Development B
plans (CAD Plans) had not been submitted by the State
nor had it been approved by the Ministry of Environment
and Forest (MoEF); that there had been no compliance
of Panchayats (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
(PESA Act) which required consultation with office c
bearers of Panchayats before initiation of land
acquisition proceedings; that the canal affected persons
were also entitled for the full benefit of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy (R&R Policy) framed for the Narmada
Valley Projects, including the allotment of land in lieu of · D
the land acquired as per R & R policy.

The High Court held, inter a/ia, that though there was
an intelligible differentia in making the classification
between the oustees of submerged areas of dam and
canals, but the same has no rational nexus with the E
object to achieve so far as the rehabilitation was
concerned and, therefore, the persons affected by canal
work were entitled to the same benefit as that of
submergence affected persons. Aggrieved, the State
Government filed the appeal. F

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is evident from the Narmada Water
Disputes Tribunal Award, 1997 that the definition of
'oustee' does not take within its ambit the "canal affected G
person". However, the said award does not apply to the
projects in the instant case, as it was meant only for Inter-
state projects like Sardar Sarovar Project. [para 13] [676-
E-F; 677-C]
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
~

A 1.2 So far as the Indira ·Sagar Project is concerned,
it was given clearance on 24.6.1987 and did not have any
specific direction for r~habilitation. Similarly, for
Omkareshwar Project, clearance was granted on
13.10.1993 and part (vii) thereof provided that the ~

B rehabilitation programme would be extended to landless
labourers and people affected due to canal by identifying •
and allocating suitable land "as permissible". The words
"as permissible" have been interpreted by this Court* and
there is no reason to reconsider the issue afresh. [para
c 14) [677-D·F]

*Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. State of M.P., AIR 2011
SC 1989 - relied on.
1.3 This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan-r* has '
D taken a view that the canal affected persons cannot be
put at par with the submergence affected persons. In
view of the fact-situation, it was not permissible for the
High Court to take a view contrary to the view taken by
this Court, particularly, when the High Court came to the
E conclusion that there was a reasonable differentia
between the two. However, this Court by an interim order
dated 5.5.2010 has also taken care of "hardship cases"
in canal affected areas. [paras 18-19) [678-G-H; 679-A-B]
r
** Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India & Ors.
F 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 94 = (2000) 10 SCC 664 - relied on.

1.4 The State has graciously agreed that in order to
give more benefit to canal affected persons, the Court
may award some more benefits. The State has suggested
G that in order to achieve the purpose, the date of s. 4 •
1
Notification, irrespective of its actual date, in relation to
all canal affected persons be shifted (postponed) to the
date of this judgment and the market value of the land be .
re-determined according to the provisions of the Act 1894
H making the supplementary awards and giving the
· STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 667
PATKAR & ORS.

opportunity to such oustees further for filing reference u/ A
s 18 of the Act 1894. In this view of the matter, the Land
Acquisition Collector is directed to reconsider the market
value of the land of the canal affected persons as if s.4
Notification in respect of the same has been issued on
date, i.e. 2.8.2011, and make the supplementary awards B
in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1894. Such
concession extended by the State would be over and
above the relief granted by this Court by order dated
5.5.2010 as clarified/modified subsequently and it is
further clarified that further canal work would be subject c
to clearance/direction which may be given by MoEF. [para
20) (679-B-F]

Case Law Reference:
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 94 relied on para 5 D
AIR 2011 SC 1989 relied on para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6229 of 2011.
E
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2009 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. (C) No. 6056 of
2009.
/" T.R. Andhyarujina, C.D. Singh, Sunny Chaudhary, Shomick
Ghosh, Abhimanyu Singh for the Appellants. F

Mohan Jain, ASG, D.K. Thakur, Prabhat Kumar, Rekha
Pandey, Shreekant N. Terdal, Sanjay Parikh, Mamta Saxena,
Anitha Shenoy, Syed Naqvi, N.K. Sharma, lina, Rajesh Kumar,
Medha Patkar (Respondent In Person) for the Respondents. G
•)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
.... ,

A Pradesh and instrumentality of the State against the judgment
and order dated 11.11.2009 in Writ Petition (C) No.6056 of
2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur,
whereby the High Court has restrained the State of Madhya
Pradesh or any other statutory authority of further acquisition '
B of land or for any excavation or any construction of the canal
network for the command areas of the Indira Sagar and
Omkareshwar projects till the Command Area Development
plans (hereinafter called CAD Plans) submitted to the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest
c (hereinafter called MoEF) are scrutinized by the committee of
experts and clearance is granted by the said Ministry. The
appellant-State Government has further been directed to
provide rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (hereinafter called R&R ..
Policy) for Narmada Valley Projects to the canal affected
D
persons/families of Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar projects
and the Narmada Control Authority (hereinafter called NCA) has
been directed to ensure implementation of the aforesaid
directions.

E 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
are:

A. That after completing the procedure prescribed for
.r
establishment of dams and irrigation projects, the project
F reports for Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar projects were
prepared and submitted for clearance. The environmental
clearance for Indira Sagar project was granted by MoEF on
24.6.1987 by an administrative order. The Planning
Commission also approved investment to be made in Indira
Sagar project on 6.9.1989.
G
B. The R & R Policy of 1989 was introduced by the State
of Madhya Pradesh for the oustees of submerged area in
Narmada Valley projects. Land acquisition proceedings were
initiated in year 1991 for canal construction under Indira Sagar
H project. A comprehensive CAD plans for Omkareshwar project

-
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 669
" .... PATKAR & ORS. [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

were sent to MoEF for clearance. Environment Impact A
Assessment and Environment Management Plan reports were
also submitted for Omkareshwar project to MoEF which also
contained the R & R plan for lhe affected persons of the
~ Omkareshwar project. It provided that the persons whose land
~ was to be acquired for establishment of canals were not to be B
included in R & R plans.

C. The Ministry of Welfare, Government of India accorded
clearance to the R & R plan of Omkareshwar project on
8.10.1993. Similarly, by an. administrative order environmental
clearance for Omkareshwar project was granted by MoEF on c
13.10.1993.

'I
D. The MoEF ·issued statutory notification under Section
3(2) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called
• the Act 1986) read with Rule 5(3) of the Environment D
(Protection) Rules 1986 requiring environmental clearance for
development of project on 27.1.1994. The canal construction
in Indira Sagar project started on 30.5.1999. The NVDD vide
order dated 14.8.2000 amended the definition of "Displaced
person" adding in clause 1(a) the following words: E
"..... or is required for the project-related canal construction
and construction of the Government Project Colony."
/'>
The Planning Commission granted approval in respect of
Omkareshwar project on 15.5.2001. The R & R policy stood F
materially changed vide amendment dated 1.9.2003 as from
the definition of "displaced person" the words ·''which is required
for project related construction of canals or the Government
project colony" stood deleted .
•••

G
The Amendment to the Rehabilitation Policy was made by
the Narmada Control Board (NCB) on the recommendation of
the NVDA on 2.7.2003 as per Business Rules of Narmada
Control Board Part II Special Procedure for Emergency
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
••
A Sanction and not under the Government of Madhya Pradeh
Business Rules.

E. The dam construction of Indira Sagar project stood
completed in year 2005 and the High Court, in a pending
litigation, permitted the State of Madhya Pradesh to raise water
8 level of Indira Sagar Dam upto 260 meter against the full
reservoir level of 262.13 meters vide order dated 8.9.2006. The
High Court further clarified that NCA had no role to play
regarding the Indira Sagar project i.e. intra-State project as its
role was confined to inter-State Project, i.e. Sardar Sarovar
C Project.

F. The Omkareshwar dam stood completed in year 2007.
In order to set up canals, land acquisition proceedings were
initiated in year 2009 and in some cases after conclusion of
o the proceedings, compensation under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act 1894) has
been paid. However, in some cases acquisition proceedings
are still in progress.

G. The respondents preferred Writ Petition (C) No.6056
E of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
on 18.6.2009 challenging the acquisition of land for excavation
of canals; execution, excavation and construction of canal on
various grounds, inter-a/ia; the CAD Plans had not been
submitted by the State and not approved by the MoEF; there
.. '
F had been no compliance of Panchayats (Extension of
Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (hereinafter called PESA Act)
which required consultation with office bearers of Panchayats
before initiation of land acquisition proceedings; the canal
affected persons were also entitled for the full benefit of R & R
G Policy including the allotment of land in lieu of the land acquired
as per R & R policy, which had not been provided for.

H. The State of M.P., appellant herein contested the case
contending that land acquisition proceedings could not be
H challenged at a belated stage i.e. after dispossession of the

.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 671
PATKAR & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
...... tenure holders; authorities had submitted the CAD Plans and A
acted on the same after being approved by the MoEF. Canal
affected person could not be treated at par with an oustee of
the submerged area of the dam, rather he would be given
benefit as per the policy prescribed for such a class of persons.
t B
4. The High Court after considering the rival submissions
• held as under:

(I) The CAD Plans of Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar
projects were required to be prepared and submitted to the
c
authority entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring, planning
and implementation of environmental safeguards and this was
to be done before the commencement of the canals so that
such authority could ensure that the environmental safeguards
and mitigative measures had been properly planned and could
• be implemented pari passu with the construction of the ·canal D
., project.

(II) If land is acquired and excavated before preparation
and submission of CAD Plans to such monitoring authority,
environmental safeguards could not be implemented pari passu E
with the construction of canal project. Rather, if the main canals
and branch canals are constructed without keeping in mind the
environmental requirements then there may be immense
problem of water logging and salinity disturbing the
/':> environmental plans and the authority entrusted to ensure the
F
environmental safeguards may not be able to reverse the
acquisition of land.

(Ill) There was an intelligible differentia in making the
classifieation between the oustees of submerged areas of dam
and canals but have no rationale nexus with the object to G
J
.. achieve so far as the rehabilitation was concerned. Thus, the
person·s affected by canal work were entitled to the same
benefit as that of submergence affected persons.

(IV) In view of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4{i) of H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A PESA Act, the State Legislature was not competent to make
any law under Part IX of the Constitution of India inconsistent
with the basic features of the Gram Sabha or Panchayats at
the appropriate level requiring consultation for land acquisition
in the scheduled area for the development projects. Therefore,
s it was not permissible for the court to issue direction to the
authorities to consult Gram Sabha before acquisition of land.

(V) Challenge to the acquisition of land could not be
entertained at a belated stage as the possession of the land
C had been taken long back.

(VI) The clearance from MoEF requires the agents to
monitor the environmental protection measures.

In view of the above, the High Court issued directions as
D explained in para 2 hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

5. Shri T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants has submitted that CAD Plans
have been submitted by the authorities from time to time to the
ministries of the Central Government and have got the
E clearances and the work had been executed giving strict
adherence to those clearances. Even at present, the revised
CAD Plans have been submitted and are being considered by
the Expert Committee of the MoEF, wherein the respondent-
Ms. Medha Patkar has also been heard. As voluminous
F documents have been submitted by her and this Court had
been issuinu directions from time to time, the MoEF has yet to
take the final decision. The State authorities are bound to
proceed in accordance with the final decision taken by the
MoEF and in case the CAD Plans are not found to be
G appropriate or complete and the MoEF issues certain
directions or asks for some variations etc. the State
Government would proceed accordingly. Therefore, according
to Mr. Andhyarujina, the issue of submission and clearance of
CAD Plans should not be decided at this stage by the court. It
H is further submitted by Mr. Andhyarujina that in case a party is
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 673.
PATKAR & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
... aggrieved by the order to be passed by MoEF, it would be A
open to it to challenge the said order before the appropriate
forum.

So far as the issue of rehabilitation is concerned, it has
.. been canvassed on behalf of the State that question of putting
B
the canal affected persons at par with submergence affected
• persons does not arise. This Court in Narmada Bachao
Ando/an v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 664,
(hereinafter called "Narmada Bachao Ando/an /'') has
categorically held that both classes are different and cannot be
put on equal footings. The canal affected people may rather be
c
benefited because of the canals while the submergence
affected persons may suffer permanently or temporarily.
Therefore, to that effect, the High Court was not justified in
y issuing direction to treat both the classes at par.
D
'r 6. On the other hand, Ms. Medha Patkar, respondent-in-
person and Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the
respondents have submitted that there is no difference in the
sufferings of the persons, whether they are submergence
affected persons or canal affected persons. No rationale nexus E
can be found to treat them differently. Therefore, the High
Court's finding to that extent does not require any interference.
The CAD Plans submitted by the State authorities are not
complete and are being examined by the Expert Committee
,/"'),
of the MoEF. Therefore, the High Court has rightly directed the F
authority not to proceed with excavation or establishment of
canals etc. The facts of the case do not warrant any interference
by this Court. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record . G
• ~

8. Though, a large nu'mber of issues have been agitated .
before the High Court and dealt with, some of them have not
been agitated before us. The issue of consultation with the
Gram Sabha or Panchayats before acquisition of land and H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A validity of the acquisition proceedings had been dealt with by
....
the High Court against the writ petitioners and the same has
not been challenged before us. Thus, only two issues survive,
i.e. submission of CAD Plans before the MoEF and
requirements of its clearance; and entitlement of the canal
;
8 affected persons.
•
9. So far as the first issue is concerned, this Court vide
order dated 25.2.201 Oafter taking note of the directions issued
by the High Court and in view of the fact that the CAD Plans
etc. were being considered by the Expert Committee of the
c MoEF and for many years excavation and construction of canal
work and acquisition of land for that purpose had been done
to a great extent and the High Court order brought the same to
a standstill, passed the following order:
•
D "In the above circumstances, excavation or
construction of the canal work and acquisition of land may
go on for the time being, however, it would be subject to
approval of the MoEF of the revised plans submitted on
16th October, 2009. The State would be at liberty to file
E further details regarding the Command Area Development
Plans to the MoEF and if such details regarding the
Command Area Development Plans are filed, the same
may be referred to the Expert Committee for consideration.
The Expert Committee to take a decision within a period r

F of six weeks and as soon as the Report is available to
MoEF, the MoEF to take decision within a further period
of four weeks thereafter."
10. Mr. Mohan. Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the MoEF has supported the case of the State
G contending that the State authorities had always been submitting )

the CAD Plans from time to time and the same had also been •
cleared by the statutory authorities. References have been
made to the decision dated 10.2.2011 taken by Dr. Pandey's
Committee on CAD Plans and all other subsequent decisions
H taken on 29th/30th April, 2011 on the CAD Plans submitted by

2
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 675
PATKAR & ORS. [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
...... the State Government. Mr. Jain assured the Court that the A
decisions would be taken by the MoEF strictly in accordance
with law considering the report of the Expert Committee. Time
is being taken in view of the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by
this Court directing MoEF to proceed with the draft minutes
~ prepared by the Environment Appraisal Committee after B
~
providing the opportunity of personal hearing to the writ
petitioner- Ms. Medha Patkar. Though the hearing stood
concluded, a large number of documents submitted by Ms.
Patkar yet require to be considered. The final decision shall be
taken within 4 weeks. c
11. While considering the reliefs, which could be given to
the canal affected persons, this court on 5.5.2010 passed the
following order :
,. "The State of Madhya Pradesh shall_ consider the D
"hardship cases"; those cases wherein land of a Khatedar
" is in excess of 60% or above is acquired for canal, those
affected parties may be given land as far as possible in
the near vicinity or in the canal command area of the project
and if it is not possible, the land may be given from the E
Land Bank. The Khatedars who have already received
compensation, should return the Government 50% of the
compensation amount already taken by them as land value
and the remaining amount may be refunded -to the
,,-. Government in 20 interest free annual installments. If the F
Khatedars are not willing to take land from the land bank,
they may be given the compensation as per the present
market value plus 30% solatium thereof. Those who are
not coming in the category of hardship cases,
compensation is to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act G
with 30% solatium .
•_:.
Any grievance in respect of these affected parties
may be placed before the Grievance Redressal Authority
for Narmada Water Basin Project which has been set up
by the State Government.. Land Bank should, as far as H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R

A possible, give cultivable land and also basic infrastructure
such as school, primary health centre, communication
facilities etc. shall be provided."

12. While entertaining I.A. No.9 of 2011, on 21.7.2011 the
aforesaid order was modified as under:
8
"50% of the cash compensation already received by the
Khatedars have to be refunded to the Government as land
value of land allotted and the remaining cost of the land
will be paid in 20 interest free annual installments."
c
While hearing the matter, this court further clarified the
order dated 5.5.2010 to the extent that 30% solatium as
. mentioned in the order dated 5.5.2010 meant as provided
under the Act 1894 and not over and above the same to make
D it 60%. •
Therefore, the question remains as what are the other ,.
reliefs that can be granted to the canal affected persons and
as to whether they can be put at oar with the oustees of
submergence area.
E
13. The Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal Award 1979
defined 'oustee' as well as provided for rehabilitation:

"Oustee- An "Oustee shall mean any person who since at
least one year prior to the date of publication of the
F
notification under section 4 of the Act, has 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."
G Provision for Rehabilitation: According to the present
estimates the number of oustee families would be 7,366
spread over 173.villages in Madhya Pradesh, 467 families ••
spread over 27 villages in Maharashtra. Gujarat shall
establish rehabilitation villages in Gujarat in the irrigation
'H command of the Sardar Sarovar Project on the norms
STATE OF MADH'(A PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 677
PATKAR & ORS. [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
~:.. hereinafter mentioned for rehabilitation of the families who A
are willing to migrate to Gujarat. For oustee families who
are unwilling to migrate to Gujarat, Gujarat shall pay to
Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra the cost, charges and
expenses for establishment of such villages in their
~
respective territories on the norms as hereinafter B
provided."
•
Thus, it is evident from the above that the definition of
'oustee' does not take within its ambit the "canal affected
person". However, the said award does not apply to the present
projects as it was meant only for Inter-State projects like Sardar
c
Sarovar Project.

14. So far as the Indira Sagar Project is concerned, it was
., given clearance on 24.6.1987 and did not have any specific
direction for rehabilitation. Similarly, for Omkareshwar Project, D
~ clearance was granted on 13.10.1993 and part (vii) thereof,
provided that the rehabilitation programme would be extended
to landless labourers and people affected due to canal by
identifying and allocating suitable land "as permissible".
E
The words "as permissible" have been interpreted by this
Court in Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. State of M.P., AIR 2011
SC 1989, that addition of such terms while granting clearance
did not create a right in favour of such persons as the
_,;'' rehabilitation is to be made in accordance with the terms of R
F
& R Policy. Thus, we do not see any reason to reconsider the
issue afresh.
15. The general R & R Policy of the State of Madhya
Pradesh defines 'displaced person' in para 1.1 as a person in
an area likely to come under submergence because of project G
( or which is required by the project. The R & R Policy was
.A
amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 14.8.2000 which
included the persons whose land was likely to come under
submergence or was required for the project related canal
construction. H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A 16. This Court in Narmada Bachao Ando/an I (supra) ....
considered a similar issue, but made the distinction between
canal affected persons and persons affected by submergence
in para 169 which reads as under:

B "Dealing with the contention of the petitioners that there will
be 23,500 canal-affected families and they should be <

treated on a par with the oustees in the submergence •
area, the respondents have broadly submitted that there
is a basic difference in the impacts of the projects in the
upstream submergence area and its impacts in the
c beneficiary zone of the command area. While people, who
were oustees from the submergence zone, required
resettlement and rehabilitation, on the other hand, most
of the people falling under the command area were in
fact beneficiaries of the projects and their remaining land
D would now get relocated with the construction of the canal ~

leading to greater agricultural output. We agree with this ~

view and that is why, in the award of the Tribunal, the State
of Gujarat was not required to give to the canal-affected
people the same relief which W«S required to be given to
E the oustees of the submergence area." (Emphasis added)

17. In view of the above, the State of Madhya Pradesh
amended R & R Policy on 1.9.2003 deleting the words "which
is required for project related constructions of canal or
F government project colony." Thus, in view of the above, the State •
of M.P. does not give the same R & R package to the canal
affected persons as those affected by submergence.
18. This Court has taken a view that the canal affected
persons cannot be put at par with the submergence affected
G persons, thus, it is not possible for the court to put the canal
affected persons at par with the submergence affected persons. )
~

In view of the fact-situation, it was not permissible for the
High Court to take a view contrary to the view taken by this
H Court, particularly, when the High Court came to the conclusion
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 679
• >
PATKAR & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

that there was a reasonable differentia between the two. A

19. Be that as it may, this Court vide an interim order dated
. 5.5.2010 has also taken care of "hardship cases" in canal
~
affected areas.
II

Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the B
State has graciously agreed that in order to give more benefit
to canal affected persons, the court may award some more
benefits. The State has suggested that in order to achieve the
purpose, date of Section 4 Notification in all the cases,
irrespective of the actual date of Section 4 Notification in c
relation to all canal affected persons be shifted (postponed) to
the date of this judgment and direct to re-determine the market
~
value according to the provisions of the Act 1894 as early as
possible making the supplementary awards and giving the
" opportunity to such oustees further for filing reference under D
Section 18 of the Act 1894.

20. The State has come forward with most appropriate
and valuable suggestion, thus, we accept the same. In view of
the above, Land Acquisition Collector is directed to reconsider
E
the market value of canal affected person.s as if Section 4
Notification in respect of the same has been issued on date,
,' ....... i.e. 2.8.2011 and make the supplementary Awards in
accordance with the provisions of the Act 1894. Such
concession extended by the State would be over and above
F
the relief granted by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2010 as
clarified/modified subsequently, as explained hereinabove and
it is further clarified that further canal work would be subject to
clearance/direction which may be given by MoEF.
•.-4
21. In view of the above, appeal stands disposed of.. No G
order as to costs.

R.P. Appeal disposed of.

H