2011 (5) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

Court modifies land allotment, excludes major sons. Landless laborers not entitled to agricultural land. NWDT Award doesn't apply.

State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr

The court modified the High Court's directions regarding the allotment of land to displaced persons and set aside the direction to allot agricultural land ... 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? Whether the NWDT Award provided for any entitlement of major sons to allotment of agricultural land, and if not, whether the judgment in Narmada Bachao Andolan –I could have been considered as a precedent in Narmada Bachao Andolan –II? Whether the High Court has rightly interpreted the terms and conditions of the R & R Policy, as the High Court has proceeded with the assumption that the R & R Policy provides that major sons of oustees i.e. the “large land owning families” and those who had been “part of the bigger family” would be entitled for allotment of agricultural land? Issues Involved:1. Allotment of agricultural land to displaced persons.2. Entitlement of major sons of oustees to separate allotment of agricultural land.3. Entitlement of landless labourers to allotment of agricultural land.4. Applicability of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award to the Omkareshwar Dam project.5. Entitlement of oustees of already submerged villages to allotment of land.6. Withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings by the State under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.7. Conduct and credibility of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) in the litigation.8. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) guidelines and misuse.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allotment of agricultural land to displaced persons:The court held that the displaced families who have not withdrawn SRG benefits/compensation voluntarily and submit applications for allotment of land before the Authority concerned, shall be entitled to the allotment of agricultural land 'as far as possible' in terms of the R & R Policy. The authorities must make some government or private land available for allotment to such oustees if they opt for such land and agree to ensure compliance with other terms and conditions stipulated therein. The Government must continue to search for additional land and ensure that allocated land is not encroached upon.2. Entitlement of major sons of oustees to separate allotment of agricultural land:The court concluded that major sons of oustees are not entitled to separate allotment of agricultural land. The definition of 'displaced family' includes major sons, but this does not extend to separate land allotment. The High Court's direction to allot agricultural land to major sons of the oustees was set aside.3. Entitlement of landless labourers to allotment of agricultural land:The court held that landless labourers are not entitled to allotment of agricultural land. The Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Forest and Environment dated 13.10.1993, which granted clearance for the Omkareshwar Dam project, was qualified by the words 'as permissible,' meaning that landless labourers would get land only if it is permissible under existing laws or policies.4. Applicability of the NWDT Award to the Omkareshwar Dam project:The court held that the NWDT Award was specific to the Sardar Sarovar Project and did not apply to the Omkareshwar Dam project. The Tribunal's Award was limited to resettlement and rehabilitation of oustees affected by the Sardar Sarovar Project and did not extend to future projects like the Omkareshwar Dam.5. Entitlement of oustees of already submerged villages to allotment of land:The court held that the oustees of the five villages that have already been submerged are entitled to the same relief as other oustees. If any oustee from these villages is not satisfied with what they have received, they can approach the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) for adjudication.6. Withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings by the State under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:The court concluded that the State is entitled to abandon the land acquisition proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act 1894. However, this does not apply to the 167 dwelling units on the said land. Such persons whose dwelling units are acquired shall be entitled to the benefits of the R & R Policy.7. Conduct and credibility of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) in the litigation:The court found that the NBA had made misleading statements and had not acted with a sense of responsibility. The court emphasized that PILs should be filed with clean hands, a clean mind, and a clean objective. The court suggested that in future, the court must view any presentation by the NBA with caution and care, insisting on proper pleadings and full disclosure of facts.8. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) guidelines and misuse:The court reiterated that PIL jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and that the standard of expectation of civic responsibility required of a PIL petitioner is higher than that of an applicant who strives to realize personal ends. The court emphasized that abuse of the PIL process should be curbed and that PILs should not be used to achieve oblique purposes.Conclusion:The court modified the High Court's directions regarding the allotment of land to displaced persons and set aside the direction to allot agricultural land to major sons of oustees. The court held that landless labourers are not entitled to allotment of agricultural land and that the NWDT Award does not apply to the Omkareshwar Dam project. The court allowed the State to withdraw land acquisition proceedings for agricultural land but maintained that dwelling units must be acquired and oustees must be given benefits under the R & R Policy. The court criticized the NBA for misleading statements and emphasized the need for caution in entertaining PILs.