Clarification of Compensation for Project Affected Families: Narmada Bachao Andolan Case
The case of Narmada Bachao Andolan and Others vs. Union of India revolves around a long-standing legal battle over the rehabilitation and compensation of families displaced due to the Sardar Sarovar Project. This particular case focuses on clarifications sought regarding the compensation package, which was determined for the project-affected families under a Supreme Court order dated 8 February 2017. The case highlights the challenges in providing appropriate compensation and the implementation of rehabilitation policies for those affected by large infrastructure projects. In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification on the amount of compensation due to the applicant, as well as the legal interpretation of the compensation package granted by the court in 2017.
Background of the Dispute
The Narmada Bachao Andolan, a social movement aimed at protecting the rights of those displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam, has been a key player in the legal battles surrounding the rehabilitation of project-affected families (PAFs). On 12 December 1979, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) issued its final order on the resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced families. One of the provisions of this order, Clause IV(7), entitles displaced families to be allotted agricultural land in exchange for the land acquired from them, subject to certain conditions.
Subsequent to the tribunal’s decision, the State of Madhya Pradesh implemented a Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) policy in 1989, which further specified that each affected family would be allotted two hectares of land, or an equivalent cash compensation based on the value of the land. This policy allowed for a maximum of eight hectares for families whose acquired land was greater than two hectares.
In 2000, the Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) set up a Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) to resolve issues related to the resettlement of the project-affected families. However, disputes regarding the adequacy of compensation and the allocation of land continued to surface. In 2017, the Supreme Court sought to resolve these disputes by determining the compensation for the affected families, particularly those who had not yet received full compensation.
The 2017 Supreme Court Order and the Clarification Sought
In February 2017, the Supreme Court directed that 681 families who had yet to receive full compensation be paid Rs 60 lakh each, which was determined as the full and final settlement for the resettlement of the affected families. The Court also noted that there were 1,358 families who had been duped or had not received any compensation, and directed that these families be compensated with a payment of Rs 15 lakh each.
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/adoption-dispute-and-property-rights-a-landmark-judgment/
However, certain families, including the applicant in this case, were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded. The applicant, a member of one of the displaced families, argued that the compensation amount did not adequately reflect the value of the land acquired from them. Specifically, the applicant contended that since their landholding was greater than two hectares (4.293 hectares), they should be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 30 lakh per hectare, based on the provisions of the Tribunal’s Award and the R&R policy.
The applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification or modification of the 2017 order, asking for the compensation to be adjusted based on the landholding of 4.293 hectares. This would result in a compensation amount of approximately Rs 1.28 crore, as opposed to the Rs 60 lakh awarded under the earlier settlement package.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Argument: The applicant’s legal counsel, represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, argued that the compensation package of Rs 60 lakh per family, which was determined based on an average rate of Rs 30 lakh per hectare, was insufficient for families who had landholdings greater than two hectares. The applicant claimed that as per the Tribunal’s Award of 1979, they were entitled to compensation for 4.293 hectares of land, and thus, the compensation should be calculated at the rate of Rs 30 lakh per hectare for the entire landholding. This would bring the total compensation to Rs 1.28 crore, which the applicant argued was their rightful entitlement.
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-anchorage-and-port-dues-in-mumbai-port-dispute/
Respondent’s Argument: On the other hand, the Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, opposed the application for clarification or modification. The Union contended that the compensation package of Rs 60 lakh per family was determined in a comprehensive and final settlement, and that it was not permissible to modify the order based on the applicant’s individual claims. The Union emphasized that the settlement package was determined in the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, which provides for a full and final resolution of the matter. The Union also argued that the applicant had voluntarily accepted the compensation, and thus, could not now seek additional compensation beyond the settled amount.
The Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, found that the application for clarification or modification lacked merit. The Court held that the compensation package of Rs 60 lakh per family was determined as part of a final settlement, which was applicable to all project-affected families who had not yet received compensation. The Court pointed out that the compensation was determined in consultation with all parties, including the applicants, and that it represented a fair and final resolution of the issue.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution was not susceptible to modification or clarification through miscellaneous applications. The Court noted that the applicant’s entitlement had already been determined based on the Tribunal’s Award and the R&R policy, and that the compensation awarded in 2017 was in full and final settlement.
While dismissing the application, the Court also directed that the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) expedite the disposal of any pending applications related to the compensation, and that the authorities ensure that the remaining project-affected families receive their compensation in accordance with the Court’s order.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the Court’s role in ensuring fair and final settlements in cases of resettlement and rehabilitation. By rejecting the application for clarification or modification, the Court upheld the integrity of its 2017 order, which aimed to provide a comprehensive resolution to the long-standing dispute over compensation for project-affected families. This case underscores the challenges involved in the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects, especially when it comes to compensating and rehabilitating displaced families.
Judgment Date: September 22, 2022
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Petitioner Name: Narmada Bachao Andolan and Ors.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors.
Case Outcome: Petition Dismissed
Place of Incident: Madhya Pradesh, India
Original File Name: 24638_2018_2_105_38471_Judgement_22-Sep-2022.pdf
Total Characters in File: 34876
Petitioner Name: Narmada Bachao Andolan and Ors..Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh, India.Judgment Date: 22-09-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: narmada-bachao-andol-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-22-09-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in Judgment by P.S. Narasimha
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
