REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3726 OF 2011

Narmada Bachao Andolan ... Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur

in Writ Petition No. 1360 of 2009.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

A.In the year 1972, the State of Madhya Pradesh conceived a dam

to provide irrigation facilities to farmers of Khargone district.

The dam, on filling upto full, would cause submergence of

1258.59 hectares of land, out of which 1037.715 is private and

206.635 is government and 14.24 hectares is forest land.

B.On 10.1.1992, a detailed Project Report was prepared and

submitted to the State Government and the Final Project Report

was approved by Technical Committee of Central Water

Commission vide order dated 6.5.1997. Clearance to the project

was given by the Government of India. It was on 10.10.2002 that

the project was accorded Environmental and Forest clearance.

C.The Cabinet of Ministers in its meeting dated 4.10.2002 approved

payment of Special Rehabilitation Grant (hereinafter called SRG)

to be paid to oustees, who would not ask for land in lieu of land

acquired. As a consequence thereof, order dated 28.12.2002 was

issued to the same effect in the name of the Governor of the State

of Madhya Pradesh.

D.On 23.5.2004, construction of dam site commenced and was

completed upto crest level in the year 2008; only gates were

required to be installed so as to achieve full reservoir level of 317

metres. Subsequent thereto, Notification dated 5.3.2008 was

issued regarding submergence of four villages, namely, Sonud,

Nimit, Bedhaniya and Khamid.

2

E. Appellant approached the High Court by filing writ petition

No. 1360 of 2009 claiming various reliefs, inter-alia, to stop further

construction which may cause submergence so that displaced families

are resettled and rehabilitated in 6 months before the submergence; to

direct State Government to provide irrigated agricultural land to eligible

oustees including encroachers and landless labourers; to declare the

order dated 7.6.1991 passed by Narmada Valley Development

Department (hereinafter called NVDD) amending para 5.1 of the Re-

settlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 (hereinafter called R & R

Policy) to be ultra vires and unconstitutional, being arbitrary and mala

fides.

F. The State Authorities opposed the writ petition contending that

the validity of the R & R Policy had already been upheld by the courts;

landless labourers were not entitled for allotment of agricultural land;

the writ petition was filed at much belated stage, i.e. after completion of

the dam; appellant had an alternative efficacious remedy before the

Grievance Redressal Authority (hereinafter called GRA); amendment

in para 5.1 of the R & R Policy was only procedural, and carried out

legally and was thus valid; even otherwise the amendment to para 5.1

was inconsequential because the allotment of land for the oustees is

3

provided under Clause 3 of the R & R Policy and amendment carried

out in Clause 3 of the Policy at subsequent stage had not been

challenged by the appellant.

G. The High Court considered the rival submissions advanced on

behalf of the parties and held that challenge to the validity of the

amendment dated 7.6.1991 was belated and could not be entertained.

The alternative remedy before the GRA was efficacious and no

extraordinary situation prevailed warranting the High Court to interfere

at such a stage. The landless labourers were not entitled for allotment of

agricultural land. The oustees had been offered grant; the value of their

land had also been assessed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter called `the Act 1894’). Person aggrieved, if any, can

approach the GRA if he is not satisfied with the reliefs granted to him

in terms of the R & R Policy. After taking the aforesaid view, the High

Court issued various directions including: to install radial gates, block

sluice gates and to fill up dam upto 310 metres; when canal network is

ready, the Government could approach the Court to fill up the dam to

317 metres; the Government would ensure that land oustees were given

benefits to which they are entitled under the R & R Policy within four

4

weeks; and that persons aggrieved, if any, were at liberty to agitate the

grievances in respect of reliefs before the GRA.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Ms. Chittaroopa Palit, representative of the appellant, has

raised before us all the issues which had been agitated before the High

Court, including the right of oustees for allotment of land in lieu of land

acquired and non-compliance of R&R Policy is violative of

fundamental rights of the oustees enshrined in Article 21 of the

Constitution. It has further been submitted by her that the amendment

in Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy was null and void as it has not been

carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section

21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as the provisions of Article

166(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India. Clause 5.1 of the R & R

Policy could not be amended in violation of Rule 7(viii) of Part II of the

Business Rules. And that since the Ministry of Welfare, Government of

India, has accorded clearance to the project with a clear understanding

that landless labourers would also be allotted agricultural land and as

the same has not been complied with, the High Court’s judgment

requires interference.

5

4. On the contrary, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the appeal

contending that Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy deals with procedure

only. Entitlement for allotment of land is provided under Clause 3.2

of the R & R Policy and as the amendment to the said clause was not

challenged, amendment to Clause 5.1 remains inconsequential. Dam

construction started in year 2004 and compensation for land acquired

had been determined much ago. By December 2002, the benefit of SRG

had also been given to the oustees. The writ petition was filed in year

2008 after the dam stood fully constructed. At the time of filing the

writ petition there was no challenge to Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy,

rather it was challenged seeking amendment by filing an application

dated 11.5.2010. Amendment to Clause 5.1 of R & R Policy has been

in conformity with the Business Rules of the Government and all the

orders in this respect had been passed in the name of the Governor. The

Council of Ministers had delegated the power to the NVDD and to the

Hon’ble Minister for Rehabilitation and in case there was any

difference between the said two Hon’ble Ministers, the matter would be

referred to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The law permits delegation of

power to make routine changes in subordinate legislation. Therefore, no

6

fault can be found with the procedure adopted for amendment of Clause

5.1 of the R & R Policy.

Mr. Patwalia further asserts that so far as the

entitlement of relief in favour of landless labourers etc. is concerned,

this Court has dealt with the issue in Narmada Bachao Andolan v.

State of M.P., AIR 2011 SC 1989 (hereinafter called “Narmada Bachao

Andolan III”) and all the issues agitated in this appeal have been

answered in the said judgment. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to

be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan III (supra) has dealt

elaborately with most of the issues agitated in this appeal, particularly,

the issues of delay and laches, availability of alternative remedy,

entitlement of major sons and daughters of oustees/as well as the

landless labourers for allotment of agricultural land. The issues of land

acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement of oustees considering their

fundamental and constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 300-A of

7

the Constitution of India have been dealt with elaborately therein. This

Court held:-

“These cases are to be decided giving strict

adherence to the R & R Policy, as amended on

3.7.2002, 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. Ensuring people

are better off is the principle of socio-economic

justice which every State is under obligation to

fulfil, 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.”

Thus, the case in fact requires to be disposed of in terms of the

said judgment.

7. Ms. Palit has submitted that as the High Court did not

consider the issue of amendment of Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy and

the effect of non-compliance of the condition imposed by the Ministry

of Welfare while granting the clearance for the project, this court must

examine the said issues.

8

According to Ms. Palit, while making the amendment the

procedure prescribed under Article 166 of the Constitution has not been

followed and while granting the clearance, the Ministry of Welfare has

added the clause that families of the landless labourers would be given

agricultural land to the extent of 2 hectares which has not been given.

Thus, this appeal is being considered to be restricted to these two

issues.

Amendment to Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy:

8. The NVDD vide Resolution dated 18.11.1987 proposed

liberal amended policy for the oustees of the Narmada Projects and

submitted the same for approval to the Cabinet of Ministers,

Government of Madhya Pradesh. The said proposal was approved by

the Cabinet of Ministers, Government of M.P. on 25.11.1987.

Subsequently, the NVDD vide Resolution dated 28.8.1989 proposed

certain modifications in the rehabilitation policy and the summary of

the same was submitted for the approval to the Cabinet of Ministers,

Government of M.P. The said proposal specifically provided for

delegation of power to the NVDD and Rehabilitation Department to

make routine/general amendment in R & R Policy with the permission

9

of the Ministers-in-charge of the said two departments. The Council of

Ministers vide resolution dated 1.9.1989 approved the said proposal.

9. Certain amendments were sought in R & R Policy vide

resolution dated 5.9.1989. The NVDD, in consultation with the

Rehabilitation Department and after seeking approval of the Ministers-

in-charge of both the said Departments, amended Clauses 4.1, 5.1 and

8.3 of the R & R Policy and issued the amended policy on 7.6.1991 in

the name of the Governor of the State. The copy of the said amendment

order was issued to 44 officers concerned as is evident from the record.

Clause 4.1 of the R & R Policy was amended to facilitate the tenure

holders, who were voluntarily willing to sell their lands, “as far as

possible” to alienate the same and further providing for procedure for

determination of reasonable price of such lands. Clause 5.1 was

amended to the effect that if an oustee 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, the oustee families would have no entitlement over allotment of

land and would be paid full amount of compensation. An option once

exercised under this provision would be final, and no claim for

1

allotment of land, in lieu of the land, acquired could be made

afterwards. If any oustee family belonging to the Scheduled Tribes

submits such an application, it will be essential to obtain orders from

the Collector, who would after necessary enquiry certify that it would

not adversely affect the interests of the oustee family. Such applications

of the Scheduled Tribes oustee families could be accepted only after the

said certification by the Collector. Clause 8.3 was also amended

changing the size of plots to be allotted to the oustees etc.

10. Subsequently on 24.10.2002, NVDD submitted the summary

to Council of Ministers for approval of SRG for oustees of Narmada

Projects, particularly in respect of those oustees who were not claiming

land in lieu of the land acquired, and the said proposal was approved by

the Cabinet of Ministers. As a consequence, the order dated 28.12.2002

was issued giving effect to the said amendment in the name of the

Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh .

11. On 27.4.2002, the amendment was made in Clause 3.2 of the R

& R Policy putting the words “as far as possible” for allotment of

agricultural land to the oustees in lieu of the land acquired.

1

12. The aforesaid chronological development of amendment of R

& R Policy reveals that Clause 3 of the R & R Policy provided for

entitlement of oustees to get land in lieu of the land acquired. Clause 5

prescribed only the procedure for allotment of land under Clause 3 of

the R & R Policy. The amendment of R & R Policy on 7.6.1991

which is under challenge by the appellant only facilitates those oustees

who were not willing to take the land in lieu of the land acquired. Such

an amendment was brought on demand of the oustees as an alternative.

However, it does not take away the right of the oustees to claim land in

lieu of the land acquired, for the simple reason that there was no

amendment in year 1991 to Clause 3.2 of the R & R Policy and the

amendment to the said Clause 3.2 incorporated on 27.4.2002 is not

under challenge. The amendment under challenge simply facilitated an

oustee to claim compensation instead of land. This may be for the

reason that oustee may be willing to settle in another State or in urban

area or wants to adopt any other vocation/profession or wants to start

any other business. However, it does not take away the right of any

oustee to claim the land in lieu of the land acquired. Therefore, in our

opinion, amendment to Clause 5.1 remains inconsequential so far as the

right of an oustee to claim land in lieu of the land acquired is

1

concerned. Ms. Palit could not explain that in case her averment was

accepted and the amendment to Clause 5.1 dated 7.6.1991 stood struck

down, what benefit could an oustee derive from the same. In view of

the above, we do not find any force in the submissions made on behalf

of the appellant on this count.

13. In view of our conclusion reached herein that amendment to

clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy was inconsequential so far as entitlement

of allotment of agricultural land in lieu of land acquired was concerned,

grievance of the appellant that procedure adopted for its amendment

was not in conformity with the Statutory/Constitutional requirement

becomes purely an academic issue, not required to be determined as

Ms. Palit could not point out as what prejudice the said amendment

could cause to an oustee. However, as we have heard the issue at

length, it is desirable to decide the same also.

Procedure adopted for amendment:

14. Ms. Palit has submitted that the procedure adopted for

amendment of Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy is not in consonance with

the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and

Article 166 (2) and (3) of the Constitution. Rule 7 of the Business

1

Rules, Part II provided for the cases to be brought before the Council of

Ministers. Clause (viii) thereof reads:-

“Proposals to vary or reverse a decision

previously taken at meeting of the Council”.

15. In Sampat Prakash v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir &

Anr., AIR 1970 SC 1118, this Court held:-

“This provision (S.21) is clearly a rule of

interpretation which has been made applicable to

the Constitution in the same manner as it applies

to any Central Act or Regulation…… As an

example, under Article 77(3), the President, and,

under Article 166(3) the Governor of a State are

empowered to make rules for the more convenient

transaction of the business of the Government of

India or the Government of the State, as the case

may be, and for the allocation among Ministers

of the said business. If, for the interpretation of

these provisions, Section 21 of the General

Clauses Act is not applied, the result would be

that the rules once made by the President or a

Governor would become inflexible and the

allocation of the business among the Ministers

would forever remain as laid down in the first

rules. Clearly, the power of amending these rules

from time to time to suit changing situations must

be held to exist and that power can only be found

in these articles by applying Section 21 of the

General Clauses Act”.

16. As the issue raised is of great public importance and Ms. Palit

was not able to render proper legal assistance, we requested Mr. Gourab

1

Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General who was present in the

court to assist the court on two issues, namely:

(1) Whether the State Council of Ministers is, as a matter of

law, permitted to delegate its power to a subordinate authority to

amend its own decision.

(2) Whether such amendment is to be consistent with the Rules of

Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

17. Mr. Banerjee has made the submissions citing large number of

judgments of this Court and contended that law permits the delegation

of power for amending the subordinate legislation in view of the

provisions of Articles 77 and 166 of the Constitution.

18. Even function or duties which are vested in a State

Government by a statute may be allocated to ministers by the Rules of

Business framed under Article 166(3). In the case of The State of

Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221, it was held as

under:

“Section 3(1) of the Act confers the power of

issuing notifications under it, not on any officer

but on the State Government as such though the

exercise of that power would be governed by the

rules of business framed by the Governor under

Art. 166(3) of the Constitution. But this does not

1

afford any assistance to the appellant. The order

of Government in the present case in expressed to

be made "in the name of the Governor" and is

authenticated as prescribed by Art. 166(2), and

consequently "the validity of the order or

instrument cannot be called in question on the

ground that it is not an order or instrument made

or executed by the Governor."

19. In the said judgment, it was also observed that the Governor

remains responsible for actions of subordinates taken in his name:

“The only point canvassed is whether it was an

order made by the Governor or by some one duly

authorised by him in that behalf within

Art.154(1). Even assuming that the order did not

originate from the Governor personally, it avails

the State nothing because the Governor remains

responsible for the action of his subordinates

taken in his name. In King Emperor v. Sibnath

Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1945 PC 156 already

referred to, Lord Thankerton pointing out the

distinction between delegation by virtue of

statutory power there and the case of the exercise

of the Governor's power by authorised

subordinates under the terms of S. 49(1) of the

Government of India Act, 1935 corresponding to

Art. 154(1), said:

"Sub-section 5 of S. 2 (of the Defence of India

Act, 1939) provides a means of delegation in the

strict sense of the word, namely, a transfer of the

power or duty to the officer or authority defined

in the sub-section, with a corresponding

divestiture of the Governor of any responsibility

in the matter, whereas under S. 49(1) of the Act

of 1935, the Governor remains responsible for

the action of his subordinates taken in his name.

1

This last point is therefore without force and has

to be rejected.”

(See also the decision of the Constitution Bench in R. Chitralekha v.

State of Mysore & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1823).

20. The decision of any minister or officer under the Rules of

Business made under Articles 77(3) and 166(3) of the Constitution is

the decision of the President or the Governor respectively and these

Articles do not provide for ‘delegation’. That is to say, that decisions

made and actions taken by the minister or officer under the Rules of

Business cannot be treated as exercise of delegated power in real sense,

but are deemed to be the actions of the President or Governor, as the

case may be, that are taken or done by them on the aid and advice of the

Council of Ministers. In State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pradhan Sangh

Kshettra Samiti & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1512, this Court relied on the

decision of the Seven-Judge Bench in Samsher Singh v. State of

Punjab & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 2192 and held as under:

“….Any action taken in the exercise of the

executive power of the State vested in the

Governor under Article 154(1) is taken by the

Government of the State in the name of the

Governor as will appear in Article 166(1). There

are two significant features in regard to the

executive action taken in the name of the

1

Governor. First, Article 300 states, among other

things, that the Governor may sue or be sued in

the name of the State. Second, Article 361 states

that proceedings may be brought against the

Government of the State but not against the

Governor. The reason is that the Governor does

not exercise the executive functions individually or

personally. Executive action taken in the name of

the Governor is the executive action of the State.

Para 48 of the said judgment explains the position

of law in that behalf succinctly as follows:

“The President as well as the Governor is the

constitutional or formal head. The President as

well as the Governor exercises his powers and

functions conferred on him by or under the

Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council

of Ministers, save in spheres where the Governor

is required by or under the Constitution to

exercise his functions in his discretion. Wherever

the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the

President or the Governor for the exercise by the

President or the Governor of any power or

function, the satisfaction required by the

Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the

President or Governor but the satisfaction of the

President or Governor in the constitutional sense

in the Cabinet system of Government, that is,

satisfaction of his Council of Ministers on whose

aid and advice the President or the Governor

generally exercises all his powers and functions.

The decision of any Minister or officer under

Rules of Business made under any of these two

Articles 77(3) and 166(3) is the decision of the

President or the Governor respectively. These

articles did not provide for any delegation.

Therefore, the decision of a Minister or officer

under the Rules of Business is the decision of the

President or the Governor.”

1

21. Whether there can be further delegation by the minister to the

officer subordinate to him depends on the provisions of the Rules of

Business.

22. Rules of Business operate even when a statute does not

authorise sub-delegation. In King Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee &

Ors. (supra), the law was crystallised by the Privy Council holding that

a provision permitting sub-delegation is merely supplementary and can

be no ground for excluding the ordinary method by which the

Government’s executive business was carried on.

23. The requirement of the Rules of Business must be complied

with in order to give validity to the action or decision taken. In Smt.

Godavari Shamrao Parulekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,

AIR 1964 SC 1128, a Constitution Bench of this Court considered

whether an order of preventive detention under the Defence of India

Ordinance could have been passed in terms of the Rules of Business.

While upholding the order of detention, the court held that the

preventive detention could only be ordered by the minister who had

been allocated the relevant subject which was the basis of the detention

order.

1

24. Earlier cases of this Court suggest that the Rules of Business

are to be construed as directory so that substantial compliance with

them would suffice to uphold the validity of the relevant order of the

Government. (See: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta,

AIR 1970 SC 679)

25. Similarly, in R. Chitralekha (Supra), a Constitution Bench of

this Court had observed that it is settled law that the provisions of

Article 166 of the Constitution are only directory and not mandatory in

character. In paragraph 4 it was held as under:

“…..This view has been reaffirmed by this Court

in subsequent decisions: see Ghaio Mal & Sons

v.The State of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 65 and

it is, therefore, settled law that provisions of Art.

166 of the Constitution are only directory and not

mandatory in character and, if they are not

complied with, it can be established as a question

of fact that the impugned order was issued in fact

by the State Government or the Governor.”

(Emphasis added)

26. The judgment in R. Chitralekha (supra) has been

subsequently cited for this proposition in Bannari Amman Sugars

Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 625.

2

27. In Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay & Ors.,

AIR 1952 SC 181, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that an

omission to make and authenticate an executive decision in the form

mentioned in Article 166 does not make the decision itself illegal, on

the basis that its provisions were directory and not mandatory.

28. However, in the recent decision of MRF Ltd. v. Manohar

Parrikar & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 374, a two-Judge Bench of this Court

has sought to distinguish the above mentioned judgments and taken the

view that in case there is non-compliance of Business Rules framed

under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, the notification issued in

violation of Business Rules is void ab initio and all actions consequent

thereto are null and void. The court held:

“Thus, from the foregoing, it is clear that a

decision to be the decision of the Government must

satisfy the requirements of the Business Rules

framed by the State Government under the

provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of

India. In the case on hand, as has been noticed by

us and the High Court, the decisions leading to the

notifications do not comply with the requirements

of the Business Rules framed by the Government of

Goa under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the

Constitution and the notifications are the result of

the decision taken by the Power Minister at his

level. The decision of the individual Minister

cannot be treated as the decision of the State

Government and the notifications issued as a

2

result of the decision of the individual Minister

which are in violation of the Business Rules are

void ab initio and all actions consequent thereto

are null and void.”

29. On the other hand, in M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. & Ors. v.

Union of India & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2544, a two-Judge Bench has

accepted that the Rules of Business framed under Article 77 of the

Constitution, which is analogous to Article 166, are directory and not

mandatory, with the following observations:

“It was next contended with reference to the

Allocation of Business Rules that the Central

Government in the Urban Department can appoint

an Estate Officer but in the present case, the

Finance Department has appointed an Estate

Officer which is in violation of the Allocation of

Business Rules, 1961. Though the Division Bench

dealt with this aspect exhaustively in its judgment

and held that the provisions of the Business Rules

are not mandatory and will not vitiate the

appointment, we fully agree that the Rules of

Business are administrative in nature for

governance of its business of the Government of

India framed under Article 77 of the Constitution

of India. In this connection, the Division Bench

referred to the decision of this Court in Dattatraya

Moreshwar Pangarkar v. The State of Bombay,

(1952) SCR 612. There analogous Rules of

Business framed by the State under Article 166 of

the Constitution of India came up for

consideration and it was observed that they are

directive and no order will be invalidated, if there

is a breach thereof….”.

2

30. We have considered the larger Bench judgment of this Court in

R. Chitralekha (supra) and taken note of the fact that MRF Ltd.

(supra) is distinguishable from the case at hand since that case dealt

with rules pertaining to financial implications for which there were no

provisions in the Appropriation Act, and so the rules required

mandatory compliance. Here, there is no issue of financial

repercussions. The issue here is whether the Council of Ministers is

permitted to delegate the power to amend its decision to a Committee of

Ministers consisting of the Ministers-in-charge of the Departments

concerned and the Chief Minister, and whether such amendment needs

to be consistent with the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of

the Constitution of India. The case law provides that delegation is

permissible and that Rules of Business are directory in nature. In view

of the above, we find that delegation of power is permissible.

Submissions so made on behalf of the appellant in this regard are

preposterous.

Land to landless labourers:

31. So far as the issue of non-compliance of the clearance of the

terms incorporated by the Ministry of Welfare is concerned, the issue

2

has been elaborately dealt with by us in earlier judgment in Narmada

Bachao Andolan III (Supra). However, Ms. Palit has submitted that

certain issues could not be agitated in that case as the terms and

conditions were incorporated by the Ministry of Welfare (Government

of India), while granting the clearance dated 6.5.1997.

32. So far as the present appeal in respect of Upper Beda Project is

concerned, the rehabilitation policy for the oustees provided that the

displaced families would be rehabilitated maintaining existing structure

of social groups as far as possible, in the command area or near the

periphery of the affected areas in accordance with their preferences.

Relevant provisions of the R & R Policy read as

under:

“3.1xx xx xx

3.2 (a) Every displaced family from whom more

than 25 per cent of its land is acquired in

revenue villages or forest villages shall be

entitled to and be allotted land to the extent of

land acquired from it, subject to provision in

3.2(b) below.

(b)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.

2

Where more than 2 hectares of land is

acquired from a family, it will be allotted equal

land, subject to a ceiling of 8 hectares.

xx xx

xx

xx xx

xx

9.1 Special efforts will be made for the

effective rehabilitation of landless displaced

families. Adequate arrangements will be made by

the Narmada Valley Development Authority for

the up-gradation of existing skills or impartment

of new skills so as to promote full occupational

rehabilitation. In this regard, new opportunities

emerging as a result of the project will be fully

used for the benefit of the displaced families.

Suitable provisions will be incorporated in the

tender document of Local Competitive Bidding

(LCB) and other forms to ensure the employment

of displaced persons. The Narmada Valley

Development Authority will ensure appropriate

arrangement for discharge of these

responsibilities within a stipulated time frame. In

the interim time, special financial assistance will

be given to supplement the income of the

landless agricultural labourers and the landless

scheduled castes and scheduled tribes oustee

families for 3 years in descending order, which

shall be in addition to the grant-in-aid

mentioned in para 6.1. This period of 3 years

will be calculated from the payment year of the

grant-in-aid under para 6.1. Thus, a landless

oustee family will get a special income support

amount of Rs. 2,250/-, Rs.5,500/- and Rs.2,750/-

in the second, third and fourth year of

displacement, respectively. In addition, a further

sum of Rs.12,500/- shall be kept in reserve for

every landless oustee family and for earning

2

livelihood or for purchase of productive assets.

The above poverty line and the amount to be kept

in reserve is also linked with special support

amount and the reserve shall also be

proportionately increased accordingly. For other

landless families special financial assistance of

Rs.19,500/- will be given for the purchase of

productive assets.” (Emphasis

added)

33. The policy makes it clear that there was no provision for

allotment of agricultural land to the landless labourers. However, when

the project was placed before the Ministry of Welfare, Government of

India, it granted clearance on 6.5.1997 providing for allotment of

minimum 2 hectares of land for all landless labourers.

34. Before the High Court the issue was raised and the State

Authorities while filing the counter affidavit replied as under:

“Reply to para 5.4: While the approval

and sanction as mentioned in the para under

reply are not disputed, it is submitted that in so

far as the said clearance (Annexure P-3)

proceeds on the basis that 2 hectares of land

would be given to even a landless labour, the

same was represented against by the State

Government by its letter dated 5.4.1997…….. A

bare perusal of the said letter would show that

the issue regarding the grant of minimum 2

hectares of land to all landless labourers was

denied and it was pointed out that the State has

no such policy. It was also pointed out that such

2

a policy was the prerogative of the State

Government as “land” and “water” are State

subjects appearing in entries 17 and 18

respectively of the State list of the VIIth Schedule

of the Constitution of India. Thus, the State has

the exclusive power to frame R&R policies. It is

also pertinent to mention here that the said

provision of allotment of 2 hectares of land to all

the landless labourers neither finds mention in

the R&R policy of the State nor in the NWDT

Award nor even in the National Resettlement and

Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. Thus, the

petitioner’s reliance on the letter dated 6.5.1997

is baseless and misconceived.”

(Emphasis added)

35. Further vide letter dated 5.4.1997, the NVDD wrote to the

Ministry of Welfare informing it that landless labourers had been

proposed for giving them minimum 2 hectares of land as per its

clearance but action in this respect would be taken as per decision of

the Government.

36. We have also gone through the clearance letter dated 6.5.1997

issued by the Ministry of Welfare. The relevant part of the said letter

on which Ms. Palit has placed strong reliance reads:

“In view of the fact that R&R Action Plan

prepared is based on the R&R guidelines of

N.V.D.A projects and since the R&R Action Plan

has been modified to treat unmarried major

daughters as separate entities for all R&R

2

packages and for allotting a minimum of 2

hectares of land for all landless labourers, I am

directed to initiate the clearance for the R&R

Action Plan of this project by this ministry”

(Emphasis added)

It is impermissible in law to read a part of the document in

isolation. The document is to be read as a whole. The letter of approval

mentions “allotting a minimum of 2 hectares of land for all landless

labourers” and says that unmarried major daughters would be treated

as separate entities for that particular purpose, i.e. of allotting 2

hectares of land. Ms. Palit never pleaded the cause of unmarried major

daughters to be treated as separate entities for allotment of land. As

noted earlier, we have already dealt with and answered the issue of

entitlement of major sons and daughters of oustees for allotment of

land in negative in Narmada Bachao Andolan III (supra). Thereby,

Ms. Palit mistakenly relied on the clearance letter by the Ministry of

Welfare to say that granting land to landless labourers was in and by

itself a precondition for granting clearance to the project.

37. Moreover, even if we regard the allotment of land to landless

labourers as a condition, the Government of M.P. did not accept such a

condition. The Ministry of Welfare’s clearance was not statutory, like

2

any other statutory clearance e.g. clearance granted by Environment and

Forest Ministry. There is nothing in that clearance as to what would be

the consequence for non-compliance with those conditions. More so,

subsequent thereto, it is evident from the record that representations had

been filed on behalf of the oustees before the Ministry of Welfare.

However, no action had ever been taken by the Ministry of Welfare that

the terms incorporated by it while granting clearance were not being

adhered to and in spite of writing several letters, the Ministry of

Welfare did not consider it proper to take any action or even to refer

those letters to the State Government or to the NVDD. Thus, the said

Authorities also treated the same as non-statutory.

In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to accept

the submission made by Ms. Palit that landless labourers are entitled

for allotment of agricultural land to the extent of 2 hectares. The said

contention is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to

us that landless labourer could be entitled for allotment of agricultural

land admeasuring two hectares. Neither it had ever been contemplated

nor it is compatible with R & R Policy. Nor such land had ever been

allotted to this class of persons. The contention is hereby rejected.

2

38. In view of the above, appeal lacks merit and is accordingly

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Before parting with the case, we record our deep

sense of appreciation and thanks to Mr. Gourab Banerjee, learned

Additional Solicitor General for India, for rendering assistance to the

Court on our request.

………………………J.

(J.M. PANCHAL)

………………………J.

(DEEPAK VERMA)

..……………………..J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi,

July 26, 2011

3