Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ANR.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan & ANR
Narmada Hydro-Development Corporation Versus Narmada Bachao Andolan & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan & ANR.
Narmada Hydro Electric Development Corporation Limited Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan & ANR. ..
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. All these appeals relate to the establishment of the Omkareshwar Dam on the Narmada river in Madhya Pradesh. As these appeals are inter-connected and have been filed against interim orders passed by the High Court in the same writ petition, they have been heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. However, for convenience Civil Appeal Nos. 2115-2116 of 2011 are dealt with first. Civil Appeal Nos. 2115-2116 of 2011
2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 4457 of 2007, `Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.', wherein the High Court as an interim measure, has issued directions, inter-alia, for allotment of agricultural land to the displaced persons in lieu of the land acquired for construction of the dam in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (hereinafter called as `R & R Policy') as amended on 3.7.2003. The High Court direction applied even to those oustees who had already withdrawn the compensation, if such oustees opt for such land and refund 50% of the compensation amount received by them. The balance cost of the allotted land would be deposited by the allottees in 20 equal yearly installments as stipulated in clause (5.3) of the R & R Policy, and to treat a major son of the family whose land has been acquired as a separate family for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land.
3. FACTUAL MATRIX :
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are as follows:
A. The Narmada river starts at Amarkantak. It flows through Madhya Pradesh for 1077 km, then forms a common boundary in Maharashtra for 74 km (35 km with MP and 39 km with Maharashtra) and then passes through Gujarat for 161 km before meeting the Arabian Sea after a total length of 1312 km. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal apportioned the water in the Narmada between Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, subject to review after 45 years.
B. The State of Madhya Pradesh, conducted a survey in 1955 for the establishment of hydro-power projects in the Narmada basin at different sites including Barwaha (Omkareshwar Project). In 1983, Narmada Valley Development (Irrigation) Department (hereinafter called NVD) was set up and further studies were conducted for the establishment of hydro-power projects.
C. The Omkareshwar Dam - an intra-state project for generating 520 mega watts of power, which also involved the irrigation of 1.47 lakh hectares of agricultural land, was approved by the State Government, with an assessment that on the completion of the project, 30 villages would be submerged at the full reservoir level i.e. 196.60 mtrs.
D. The Government of Madhya Pradesh framed a rehabilitation and resettlement policy in 1985 (hereinafter called `R & R Policy') for the oustees of all the Narmada projects in the State. The said policy was amended from time to time as is evident from the R & R Policies dated: 9th June, 1987; 5th September, 1989; 7th June, 1991; and 27th August 1993. The said policy provided for the allotment of a minimum of 2 hectares of agricultural land; irrigation facilities at government cost; grant-in-aid for small and marginal farmers and SC/ST families; and to meet the entire cost of the allotted land. The policy further provided that the allotment of agricultural land would be carried out much in advance, before dam construction reached crest level.
The land required for allotment would be procured in the common area from the farmers having holdings of more than hectares of land. The State authorities obtained environmental clearance for the Omkareshwar project from the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 13.10.1993. The Ministry of Welfare granted clearance on 58.10.1993. The Planning Commission also granted clearance on condition of compliance with welfare and environmental clearances vide order dated 25.5.2001. The Central Electricity Authority accorded techno-economic clearance under the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 on 24.7.2001. The Government of India approved and granted financial concurrence from Public Investment Board of the Planning Commission for this project on 17.5.2002. Forest clearance was granted on 20.8.2004 under the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the diversion of 5829 hectares of forest lands. Therefore, there had been various statutory and non-statutory clearances from the authorities.
E. The R & R Policy further stood amended on 3.7.2003, to the effect that agricultural land would be offered to the oustees "as far as possible"; and not to those who would make application in writing to receive compensation for their acquired land.
F. Construction of the Omkareshwar dam began in 2002 and stood completed in October, 2006. A large number of families had been uprooted on construction of the dam upto its 190 mtrs. height. For the 6dam site, a huge area of land had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as `Act 1894'). The displaced persons were allegedly not offered the land under the R & R Policy, as amended on 3.7.2003, rather compensation for their land was deposited in their accounts.
G. Narmada Bachao Andolan, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as `NBA'), an action group, had been espousing the grievances of displaced persons by filing Public Interest Litigations (hereinafter called `PIL') before the High Court/further to this Court from time to time and a large number of orders had been passed by the courts to redress the grievances of the oustees. When the decision was taken to raise the height of the dam, NBA filed writ petition No.4457 of 2007 before the High Court seeking a number of reliefs, inter-alia, to stop all eviction; directions for serving of life supplies such as drinking water and electricity; not to take any other coercive measures, to stop closure of the radial gates of the Omkareshwar dam above crest level of EL 179.60 M; and to stop the blocking of the sluice gates below crest level, until all Project Affected Families (hereinafter called `PAFs') were rehabilitated as per the R & R Policy. Further reliefs sought included the issuance of appropriate 7directions for an assessment by the Grievance Redressal Authority (hereinafter called `GRA') for the Omkareshwar Project of the status of relief and rehabilitation of the oustees affected at Full Reservoir Level (hereinafter called `FRL') and Back Water Level (hereinafter called `BWL') within a stipulated period.
H. During the pendency of the writ petition in pursuance of the orders passed by the High Court from time to time, a large number of reports/interim reports were furnished by the authorities concerned. The High Court after considering the said reports and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties passed the impugned judgment and order dated 21.2.2008. The High Court issued a large number of directions as interim measures, including the direction for allotment of land in lieu of land acquired and to treat the major sons of the family, as independent families for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land. Hence, these appeals.
4. S/Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad and P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants have submitted that the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition as it did not have material facts/particulars disclosing any cause of action to the writ 8petitioners even in the PIL. Not a single order passed by any statutory authority had been challenged and the writ petition was filed after inordinate delay without furnishing any explanation for the same. The GRA had been constituted to consider individuals' grievances and not a single oustee approached the GRA before filing of the writ petition. The Court ought to have relegated the parties for redressal of their grievances to the GRA. An efficacious alternative remedy was available to the oustees. The High Court further committed an error in issuing directions for allotment of land in lieu of land even in those cases where the oustees have voluntarily accepted the compensation amount; that such oustees would deposit 50% of the said amount and would be entitled to allotment of land. It is further submitted that the High Court erred in treating the major son of such an oustee as a separate family for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land, though he did not have any independent right to claim compensation for the land acquired. Land for allotment to such oustees is not available. The State authorities cannot be asked to do an impossible task.
The State authorities have provided a package for their re-settlement and rehabilitation, giving all facilities and financial aid. Making the allotment of land mandatory in lieu of land acquired 9would force the State to displace other persons to settle such oustees, which is impermissible in law. In case each major son of such oustees is treated as a separate family, acquisition of his family land would prove to be a bonanza for such persons as the tenure holding of such a family would multiply several times and State would suffer irreparable losses. The State Government vide amendments of the Revenue Code, reduced the area of the grazing land, but the land so made available is not enough to meet the needs of such a large number of oustees. Cases decided by this Court, earlier on two occasions, have no bearing on the issue in these cases, as the true and correct facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court. Most of the oustees had taken benefit of the Special Rehabilitation Grant (hereinafter called as `SRG') and withdrawn the amount and surrendered the possession of their land. The SRG amount has been more than the compensation amount for acquisition of land. The High Court did not issue any direction in regard to the amount taken by the oustees as SRG, either to refund the same or for adjustment of the same. Therefore, directions issued by the High Court are liable to be set aside. The appeals deserve to be allowed.
5. On the contrary, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel and Shri Sanjay Parekh, Advocate representing the oustees, have vehemently opposed the appeals contending that displacement of oustees without proper implementation of the rehabilitation scheme is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a matter of this nature where a very large number of illiterate, inarticulate and poor people have suffered at the hands of the statutory authorities, no technical objections e.g. want of proper pleadings or delay etc., can be allowed to be raised. Statutory and non-statutory authorities have granted clearances for the Omkareshwar Dam Project on the clear understanding that the State authorities would carry out and implement, in letter and spirit, all the terms and conditions of the R & R Policy. Therefore, it is not permissible for the State authorities to say that it would not strictly adhere to the terms incorporated therein.
The appellant-State and its instrumentalities never made any serious attempt to acquire land for such oustees and the compensation amount has been deposited in respective accounts of the oustees. Not a single oustee had ever opted for compensation for land in lieu of land acquired. Amendment made in the R & R Policy vide order dated 3.7.2003 is ultra vires and illegal and is liable to be ignored for the 11reason that the R & R Policy had been approved by the State Government, though the amendment had not undergone the same process. If a major son of the family, whose land has been acquired, is not treated as a `separate family' for the purpose of allotment of land for land acquired, the definition of `displaced family' under clause 2(b) of the R & R Policy would be rendered nugatory.
Therefore, such an interpretation is not permissible. This Court, while interpreting the other schemes in respect of Narmada Projects itself has given effect to the said policy and directed for allotment of land for land acquired and upheld the entitlement of the major son of an oustee to an independent allotment of agricultural land. Denial of such a right would be discriminatory and thus violative of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. PLEADINGS:
7. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the 12averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, this Court has observed as under:- "In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." (Emphasis added)
8. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; M/s Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684; and Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2221. 13
9. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted." Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide: Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter-College & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242; and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127). 14
10. It cannot be said that the rules of procedural law do not apply in PIL. The caution is always added that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence in such proceedings when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. (Vide: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187).
11. Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which Court may proceed. The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs. Information furnished by him should not be vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even in PIL, the litigant cannot approach the Court to have a fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously. Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class. (Vide: A. Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1994) 6 SCC 51; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. 15State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280; Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 452; and A. Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council, Perambalur, (2009) 15 SCC 351).
12. In the instant case, in the writ petition, an impression had been given, that some drastic steps would be taken by the authorities which would cause great hardship to a large number of persons. However, the writ petition did not disclose the factum of how many persons had already vacated their houses and handed over the possession of their land. It was contended that urgent measures were required to be taken by the Court in order to mitigate the sufferings of the people.
In view of the fact that there was no material before the Court to adjudicate upon the issues involved therein, the High Court passed the order dated 30.3.2007 directing the GRA to submit the report on the rehabilitation work already done and still to be done; and to disclose the consequences of the closure of radial gates of the dam and blocking of the sluice gate of the dam on the people residing in the area which would be submerged. In pursuance of the said order, the GRA submitted the report dated 7.4.2007, explaining that a huge amount of several thousand crores of rupees had already been invested. The SRG had already been disbursed.
Out of a total 16number of 4513 families to be adversely affected by the project, 2787 families had already shifted and 1726 families remained there. An amount of Rs.9924 lacs had already been disbursed among the claimants and only a sum of Rs.589 lacs remained to be disbursed. The report further explained that land in lieu of land acquired would be allotted to oustees "as far as possible" and as most of the oustees had accepted the compensation, it was not required on the part of the State to allot the land for land acquired. The other benefits of the R & R Policy had already been given. In fact, it is in view of this report, the High Court started examining the grievances of the oustees. Several reports were submitted by the GRA before the High Court from time to time and whatever has been disclosed in those reports provided the basis for raising further queries and that, in fact, became part of pleadings of the case. In fact, the present appellants had been asked to lay factual foundation to adjudicate the issues raised by the writ petitioners.
13. In view of the above, it is evident that there were no pleadings before the High Court on the basis of which the writ petition could be entertained/decided. Thus, it was liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that the writ petition suffered for want of proper 17pleadings and material to substantiate the averments/allegations contained therein. Even in the case of a PIL, such a course could not be available to the writ petitioners. DELAY/LACHES:
14. In the instant cases, the construction of the dam started in October 2002 and was completed in October 2006. No objection had ever been raised by NBA at any stage. The Narmada Development Authority vide order dated 28.3.2007 gave permission to National Hydraulic Development Corporation to raise the water level of the dam to 189 meters upon showing that rehabilitation of oustees of 5 villages adversely affected at 189 meters, had already been completed. The writ petition was filed praying for restraining the appellants from closing the sluice gates of the dam contending that resettlement and rehabilitation was not complete. There was no explanation as to under what circumstances the Court had been approached at such belated stage.
15. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 664, (hereinafter called as `Narmada Bachao Andolan-I'), this Court dealt with a similar issue of laches and observed that in spite of the fact that the clearance for construction of the dam was 18given in 1987, the same was challenged in 1994 on the ground that there was a lack of studies available regarding the environmental aspects and also because of seismicity. Thus, the clearance should not have been granted. The rehabilitation package was dissimilar and there had been no independent study or survey done before the decision to undertake the project was taken and construction started.
This Court held that clearance and undertaking to construct the dam had been given and hundreds of crores of rupees had already been invested, before the writ petitioner had chosen to file the writ petition in 1994. Thus, the petitioner was guilty of laches in not approaching the court at an earlier point of time. The Court, however, observed as under: "When such projects are undertaken and hundreds of crores of public money is spent, any individual or organisations in the garb of PIL cannot be permitted to challenge the policy decision taken after a lapse of time.
It is against the national interest and contrary to the established principles of law that decisions to undertake developmental projects are permitted to be challenged after a number of years during which period public money has been spent in the execution of the project............ This Court has entertained this petition with a view to satisfy itself that there is proper implementation of the relief and rehabilitation measures ............. In short, it was only the concern of this Court for the protection of the fundamental rights of the oustees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which led to the 19 entertaining of this petition. It is the relief and rehabilitation measures that this Court is really concerned with and the petition in regard to the other issues raised is highly belated." (Emphasis added) In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683, this Court had taken a similar view.
16. In fact for redressal of any grievance regarding implementation of the R & R Policy, the oustees ought to have approached the GRA. There is nothing on record to show how many oustees remained unsatisfied/aggrieved of the orders passed by GRA till the filing of the writ petition.
17. Thus, in view of the above, the High Court ought not to have examined any issue other than relating to rehabilitation i.e. implementation of the R & R Policy. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY:
18. While dealing with a similar issue in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 32, (hereinafter called as `Narmada Bachao Andolan-II'), this Court observed as under: 20 "Several contentions involving factual dispute had, we may notice, not been raised before GRA. GRA had been constituted with a purpose, namely, that the matters relating to rehabilitation scheme must be addressed by it at the first instance. This Court cannot entertain applications raising grievances involving factual issues raised by the parties. GRA being headed by a former Chief Justice of the High Court would indisputably be entitled to adjudicate upon such disputes. It is also expected that the parties should ordinarily abide by such decision. This Court may entertain an application only when extraordinary situation emerges."
19. Thus, in view of the above, the High Court ought to have directed the oustees to approach the GRA for redressal of their grievances and if any person was further aggrieved of the directions issued by the GRA, he could have approached the High Court after full fledged adjudication of the factual issues by the GRA. AMENDMENT OF R & R POLICY:
20. There are claims and counter-claims on the issue as to whether the validity of the amendment of the R & R Policy was under challenge before the High Court. However, it is evident from the pleadings that the validity of the amendment dated 3.7.2003 had been raised while filing the rejoinder affidavit. The rejoinder affidavit reveals that as the R & R Policy had been approved by the State 21Government and statutory and non-statutory clearances had been obtained on the basis of the R & R Policy, the amendment dated 3.7.2003 ought to have been brought for the approval of the authorities who had granted approval at initial stage. The amendment cannot be given effect to. The impugned judgment makes it explicit that the issue had been raised and only taken note of by the Court but not decided.
21. The appellants have placed documents on record to show that amendment in issue had been duly approved by the Cabinet of the Madhya Pradesh government and suggestion has been made that amendment did not require approval of the authorities who had granted clearances. It has been opposed by the respondents.
22. In case a plea is raised and not considered properly by the court the remedy available to the party is to file a review petition. (Vide: State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1249; Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd & Ors. v. P. Surya Bhagavan, AIR 2003 SC 2182; and Mount Carmel School Society v. DDA, (2008) 2 SCC 141).
23. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that neither the writ petitioner asked the High Court to quash the said amendment dated 3.7.2003, nor the court has suo motu quashed it, nor the writ petitioner has filed Special Leave Petition raising the said point, it is not permissible for us to deal with the issue. LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION: Article 21:
24. It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying on business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to purchase and comply with any requirement of the authority or the local body, be given a piece of land on terms settled with due regard to the price at which land has been acquired from them. However, the State Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of providing alternative land considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition.
The authorities must explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities, and identification of alternative lands. "A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens." For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic.(Vide: State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 2025; Narpat Singh etc. etc. v. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2036; Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K. Project v. Mahaboob & Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 54; Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v. Mathias Oram & Ors., JT (2010) 7 SC 352; and Brij Mohan & Ors. v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr., (2011) 2 SCC 29).
25. The Fundamental Right of the farmer to cultivation is a part of right to livelihood. "Agricultural land is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom from fear. Assured possession is a lasting source 24for peace and prosperity." India being a predominantly agricultural society, there is a "strong linkage between the land and the person's status in the social system." However, in case of land acquisition, "the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable." (Vide: Chameli Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 1051; and Samatha v. State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3297).
26. This Court has consistently held that Article 300-A is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. (Vide: Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 448; and Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2010) 10 SC 43).
27. However, in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 142, this Court held: "Thus, it is clear that right to property under Article 300-A is not a basic feature or structure of the Constitution. It is only a constitutional right... ...The principle of unfairness of the procedure attracting Article 21 does not apply to the acquisition or deprivation of property under Article 300-A giving effect to the directive principles...."
28. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan - I held as under: 25 "62. The displacement of the tribals and other persons would not per se result in the violation of their fundamental or other rights. The effect is to see that on their rehabilitation at new locations they are better off than what they were. At the rehabilitation sites they will have more and better amenities than those they enjoyed in their tribal hamlets. The gradual assimilation in the mainstream of the society will lead to betterment and progress."
29. In State of Kerala & Anr. v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 46, this Court held as under: "102. Article 21 deals with right to life and liberty. Would it bring within its umbrage a right of tribals to be rehabilitated in their own habitat is the question? 103. If the answer is to be rendered in the affirmative, then, for no reason whatsoever even an inch of land belonging to a member of Scheduled Tribe can ever be acquired. Furthermore, a distinction must be borne between a right of rehabilitation required to be provided when the land of the members of the Scheduled Tribes are acquired vis-`-vis a prohibition imposed upon the State from doing so at all." Thus, from the above referred to judgments, it is evident that acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/fundamental right of the displaced persons. However, they are entitled to 26resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of the concerned project. FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT:
30. The High Court after considering the submissions and examining the documents on record, so far as the issue of land in lieu of land acquired is concerned, came to the following conclusions:
i. An area of 2508.14 hectares of agricultural land was required for allotment to the displaced families as per the R & R Policy for the Omkareshwar Project. Such land was proposed to be acquired from big cultivators having more than 4 hectares of land in the command area of the project under Section 11(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Pariyojana Ke Karan Visthapit Vyakti (Punahsthapan) Adhiniyam, 1985, (herein after called `Adhiniyam 1985').
ii. Vide order dated 4th March, 1998, the area of the grazing land (required under the M.P. Land Revenue Code) was reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent in every village. Subsequently, vide order dated 19th September, 2002, area of grazing land was further reduced to 2 per cent so that some part of such land could be allotted to the oustees of the project.
iii. No efforts had been made by the Government for allotment of land in lieu of land acquired to the displaced families under the R & R Policy as amended on 3.7.2003.
iv. The State instrumentalities had not made any effort to purchase private lands, for allotment to oustees under the R & R Policy. On the contrary, the Government made available a huge area of land required for a Special Economic Zone by acquiring private land under the Act 1894 for setting up of industries in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
v. The submission of the State authorities that on account of scarcity of cultivable land in the State, it was impossible for the State Government to purchase private land for allotment, was not acceptable.
vi. Only 11 per cent of the displaced families were able to purchase private agricultural land themselves without any aid or assistance of the State authorities.
vii. None of the oustees has given option in writing to receive compensation in lieu of land acquired.
viii. The State deposited the amount of compensation in the accounts of the oustees irrespective of whether they wanted land in lieu of land acquired.
ix. None of the protections/facilities provided for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the R & R Policy had been accorded. The District Collector did not make any verification in regard to their claim for land in lieu of land acquired as required under the R & R Policy.
x. The Government had not made any attempt to provide any grant-in-aid to cover up the gap between the amount of compensation and the actual cost of land available for the purpose, particularly to all displaced Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes families.
xi. The State authorities had hastily proceeded to complete the rehabilitation process and started the power project of the Omkareshwar Dam contrary to the assurances given under the said policy for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes families, as none of such oustees was interested in receiving compensation for agricultural land.(xii) Grant-in-aid to cover up the difference of costs of the land purchased and amount of compensation was not paid to marginal farmers having upto 2 hectares of land, as provided in the R & R Policy.
31. We have to examine whether any of the findings recorded by the High Court on the issue of entitlement for land in lieu of land acquired suffers from perversity and thus, warrants interference by this Court.
32. The relevant part of the R & R Policy, for the purpose of determination of first issue, reads as under:(I) Principles for rehabilitation of displaced families: 1. The aim of the State Government is that all displaced families as defined hereinafter would after their relocation and resettlement improve, or at least regain, their previous standard of living within a reasonable time. xx xx xx 4. Special care would be taken of the families of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, marginal farmers and small farmers. xx xx xx 30 1. The displaced families would be encouraged and assisted in purchase of lands from voluntary sellers of the host villages.II. –
State Government Policy regarding rehabilitation and resettle ment of fam ilies affected due to submerging in Narmada Projects:1. Definitions:(1.1) Displaced person: a. Any person who has been ordinarily residing or carrying on any trade or vocation for his livelihood or has been cultivating land for at least one year before the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the area which is likely to be submerged permanently or temporarily due to project. xx xx xx3. Allotment of Agricultural land: xx xx xx 3.2 (a) Every displaced family from whom more than 25 percent of its land holding is acquired in revenue villages or forest villages shall be entitled to and as far as possible 31 will be allotted land to the extent of land acquired from it, subject to the provision of para 3.2(b) below. (b)
As far as possible, a minimum area of 2 hectares 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 purchased for allotment. Where more than 2 hec. of land is acquired from a family, it will be allotted equal land as far as possible, subject to a ceiling of 8 hec. (Portion in italics was added vide amendment dated 3.7.2003) xx xx xx5. Recovery of cost of allotted land: (5.1) At least fifty per cent amount of compensation for the acquired land shall be retained as initial installment towards the payment of the cost of land to be allotted to the displaced family. However, if a displaced family does not wish to obtain land in lieu of the submerged land and wishes full payment of the amount of compensation, it can do so by submitting an application to this effect in writing to the concerned Land Acquisition Officer. In such cases displaced families will have no entitlement over allotment of land and shall be paid full amount of compensation in one installment.
As option once exercised under this provision shall be final, no claim for allotment of land in lieu of the acquired land can be made afterwards. (Portion in italics was added vide amendment dated 3.7.2003). If any displaced family belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, submits such an application, it will be essential to obtain orders of the Collector who will, after necessary enquiry, certify that this will not adversely affect the interests of the displaced family. Such application of the Scheduled Tribes displaced families will be accepted only after the above said certification by the Collector. (5.2) .................(5.3)
There will be no recovery of this loan for the first 2 years. Thereafter, the loan would be recovered in 20 equal yearly installments.(5.4) Grant-in-aid would be paid to cover up the gap between the amount of compensation and the cost 33 of allotted land in the cases where the cost of allotted land is more than the amount of compensation. This grant would be payable to all displaced land owning Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe families and other families losing upto 2 hec. of land. For other families from whom more than 2 hec. and upto 8 hectares of land is acquired, grant-in-aid in addition to amount of compensation will be given by the Narmada Valley Development Authority on the rates prescribed therein. POLICY DECISIONS:
33. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc., AIR 1998 SC 1703, this Court while examining the State policy fixing the rates for reimbursement of medical expenses to the government servants held : ".........When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, 34 beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 when it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial constraints.......... For every return there has to be investment. Investment needs resources and finances. So even to protect this sacrosanct right finances are an inherent requirement. Harnessing such resources needs top priority........No State of any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects. That is why it only approves its projects to the extent it is feasible."
34. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or more scientific or logical or wiser. The wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power. (See: Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 44; Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 561; and State of Kerala & Anr. v. Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors., (Supra).
35. Thus, it emerges to be a settled legal proposition that Government has the power and competence to change the policy on the basis of ground realities. A public policy cannot be challenged through PIL where the State Government is competent to frame the policy and there is no need for anyone to raise any grievance even if the policy is changed. The public policy can only be challenged where it offends some constitutional or statutory provisions. AS FAR AS POSSIBLE :
36. The aforesaid phrase provides for flexibility, clothing the authority concerned with powers to meet special situations where the normal process of resolution cannot flow smoothly. The aforesaid phrase can be interpreted as not being prohibitory in nature. The said words rather, connote a discretion vested in the prescribed authority. It is thus discretion and not compulsion. There is no hard and fast rule in this regard as these words give a discretion to the authority concerned. Once the authority exercises its discretion, the Court should not interfere with the said discretion/decision unless it is found to be palpably arbitrary. (Vide: Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., AIR 2005 SC 514; and High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Veena Verma & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2938).
37. Thus, it is evident that this phrase simply means that the principles are to be observed unless it is not possible to follow the same in the particular circumstances of a case. DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY:
38. The Court has to consider and understand the scope of application of the doctrines of "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform); "impossibilium nulla obligatio est" (the law does not expect a party to do the impossible); and impotentia excusat legem in the qualified sense that there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law or to forbear the prohibitory. These maxims are akin to the maxim of Roman Law Nemo Tenetur ad Impossibilia (no one is bound to do an impossibility) which is derived from common sense and natural equity and has been adopted and applied in law from time immemorial. Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like an act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. (Vide: Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3558; Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 3648; and Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 1491).
39. Thus, where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any fault on his part, and has no control over it, the law will in general excuse him. Even in such a circumstance, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of the supervening impossibility caused therein. LAND FOR LAND:
40. In Gramin Sewa Sanstha v. State of M.P. & Ors., 1986 Supp SCC 578, this Court held : "2. We are also informed that though land has been earmarked by the State Government for re- settlement of the displaced tribals, such land is not available because it is already occupied by other persons who themselves will be uprooted if such land is acquired and made available for the tribals displaced on account of the Hasdeo Bango Dam Project. If this is true, the remedy might be worse than the disease because in order to re-settle one set of displaced persons the State Government would be displacing another set of persons. We would, therefore direct the State Government to consider in the meanwhile as to whether the 38 cultivable land at any other place or places can be made available for the tribals who are displaced on account of the present project." (Emphasis added)
41. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan-I, held as under: "58.......... when the removal of the tribal population is necessary as an exceptional measure, they shall be provided with land of quality at least equal to that of the land previously occupied by them and they shall be fully compensated for any resulting loss or injury. The rehabilitation package contained in the Award of the Tribunal as improved further by the State of Gujarat and the other States prima facie shows that the land required to be allotted to the tribals is likely to be equal, if not better than what they had owned." (Emphasis added)
42. In State of Kerala v. Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (Supra), this Court held as under: "121. We must also make it clear that while allotting land to the members of the Scheduled Tribes, the State cannot and must not allot them hilly or other types of lands which are not at all fit for agricultural purpose. The lands, which are to be allotted, must be similar in nature to the land possessed by the members of the Scheduled Tribes. If in the past, such allotments have been made, as has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the respondent, the State must allot them other lands which are fit for agricultural purposes. Such a process should be undertaken and completed as expeditiously as 39 possible and preferably within a period of six months from date." (Emphasis added)
43. The issue has to be decided taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. For deciding this issue, the terms and conditions incorporated in the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award (hereinafter called as `NWDT Award') cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that the Tribunal had been constituted under the provisions of Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (hereinafter called Act 1956), and Award had been given in a case where several States, i.e., the States of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra were involved. The said Award has no application in the instant cases nor can it be a Bench Mark. More so, in the Sardar Sarovar Project, land for land was mandatory.
These cases are to be decided giving strict adherence to the R & R Policy, as amended on 3.7.2003, further considering that special care is to be taken where persons are oppressed and uprooted so that they are better off. Our Constitution requires removal of economic inequalities and provides for provision of facilities and opportunities for a decent standard of living and protection of economic interests of the weaker segments of the society and in particular Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Every human being has a right to improve his standard of living. Ensuing people are better off is the principle of socio-economic justice which every State is under an obligation to fulfill, in view of the provisions contained in Articles 37, 38, 39(a), (b), (e), (f), 41, 43, 46 and 47 of the Constitution of India. (Vide: Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr. (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 549; and N.D. Jayal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 867).
44. Mere payment of compensation to the oustees in such a case may not be enough. In case the oustee is not able to purchase the land just after getting the compensation, he may not be able to have the land at all. In K. Krishna Reddy & Ors. v. Spl. Dy. Collector, Land Acqn. Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, AIR 1988 SC 2123, this Court expressed grave concern on the issue observing as under: "....After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling with rising inflation.....The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves 41 nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated."(Emphasis added)
45. It is a matter of common experience that the "person interested" gets the actual amount of compensation in reference under Section 18 and appeal under Section 54 of the Act 1894. Award made by the Land Acquisition Collector is merely an offer by the State through its agent. The Collector acts in dual capacity. It is in fact, for this reason that local authority/company for whom the land is acquired cannot question the Award of the Collector except on the ground of fraud, corruption or collusion, as provided under Section 50 of the Act 1894. The Award in the enquiry by the Collector is merely a decision (binding only on the Collector) as to what sum shall be tendered to the owners of the lands, and that, if a judicial ascertainment of value is desired by the owner, he can obtain it by requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector to the Court. (See Ezra v. Secretary of State for India, (1905) 32 Ind App 93; and Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1164).
46. In the instant cases, admittedly, in spite of the fact that there has been a consent Award under Section 11(2) of the Act 1894, the appellants had agreed before the High Court that the oustees would be entitled to have reference under Section 18 of the Act 1894, a large number of references are pending before the courts for consideration. Thus, there is still a possibility of enhancement of compensation, but such a course would take time. By that time there will be such a hike in the price of land that the oustees will not be able to purchase the land. For lack of any experience or skill, such oustees would not be able to engage themselves in any other alternative occupation/vocation. Thus, it would be difficult for them to survive.
47. The record of the case reveals that about 56% of the oustees involved in these cases are members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Land had never been offered to any of these oustees. The amount of compensation as determined under the Act 1894 had been deposited in their bank accounts. No attempt had ever been made by the appellant-State to either acquire land from other persons having a larger area of land resorting to the provisions of Act 1894 or purchase the same by agreement/negotiation for resettlement of the oustees. Only 11% of the oustees could purchase the land of their own from other persons without any assistance from the State Authorities. The submission raised on behalf of the State that it had been impossible for authorities to acquire/purchase the land cannot be accepted as this is a pure question of fact and in absence of any material to show that any attempt had ever been made to acquire the
