REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._1211 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) 30685 of 2009)

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. ..Appellants

Verus

Bheru Singh & Ors. ..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1212 OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 10163/2010

Bheru Singh & Ors. ..Appellants

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. ..Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

Leave granted.

2. These two appeals arise out of the judgement and

order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, Bench at Indore in a public interest petition bearing Writ

Petition No. 48 of 2004 against which the State of Madhya

Pradesh as also the respondents Bheru Singh alongswith two

others which include a social activist have filed separate Special

Leave Petitions bearing Nos. 30685/2009 and 10163/2010

respectively giving rise to these two appeals which are confined to

some of the directions only, that were issued by the High Court in

its impugned judgement, to be stated hereinafter.

3. The material factual details of these two appeals have

a prolonged history giving rise to a labyrinth of litigation which

emerged as a consequence of displacement of large number of

persons from a massive area of agricultural and homestead land

which were in occupation of the oustees/displaced persons, due to

land acquisition which was done for the purpose of construction of

Man Dam on the tributary of Narmada River in the State of

Madhya Pradesh. This had given rise to the filing of several other

writ petitions in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the past

which gave rise to the appeals reaching even upto this Court and

are reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664, (2005) 4 SCC 32 and (2011) 7

SCC 639 which are commonly referred to as Narmada Bachao I

st

judgment, Narmada Bachao II

nd

judgment and Narmada Bachao

III

rd

judgement.

4. But before we discuss the relevance and implications

of these judgements on the instant appeals, it would be relevant to

2

relate the historical background of the matter giving rise to a spate

of litigations in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In this context,

it may be stated that a detailed Project Report (DPR) for the

construction of ‘Man Dam’ on the tributary of Narmada River at

Village Jirabad, Tehsil Gandhwani, District Dhar, having a total

submergence area of 1168.67 hectares in 17 villages of Tehsil

Dhar and Gandhwani, District Dhar, M.P. was submitted in July,

1982. A Rehabilitation and Re-settlement (R & R) was framed by

the State of M.P. for the project affected families (PAF) and

oustees of Narmada Project including ‘Man Dam’. This R & R

policy was later on amended several times in which the latest

amendment was made in the year 2003. The Planning

Commission of India accorded investment clearance for the ‘Man

Project’ out of total submergence area of 1168.67 hectares and

584.646 hectares of private land was acquired by invoking the

provision of Land Acquisition, 1894. In the construction of the

‘Man Dam’ which took place between the year 1991-1994, 1266

families were affected, out of which 448 families lost their land.

Out of these 448 families, 62 families opted for land as per the

policy and they were given land in the year 1994 itself. The

remaining 386 families accepted full cash compensation in terms

of Clause 5.1 of R & R policy.

3

5. However, since the displaced persons were still

dissatisfied, the Government of Madhya Pradesh as a welfare

measure took a decision in 2002 to grant ‘Special Rehabilitation

Grant’ (SRG) to the families/oustees who had lost their land in

submergence in the Narmada Project in order to enable them to

purchase land of their own choice to the extent they lost in the

submergence on condition that they will not claim any land from

the Government. The benefit of SRG was also extended to the

families/oustees who had lost their land in submergence in the

‘Man Project’. Out of the 386 families who had accepted full cash

compensation in terms of Clause 5.1 of R & R policy, 337

oustees/PAF came forward and accepted the SRG. The intention

behind the approval of SRG was that every oustees’ level of living

should not be lower than what it was before displacement, even if

they cannot be made better off. The oustees who had been

provided land for land by the Government were not eligible for

Special Rehabiliation Grant.

6. However, while implementing the R & R Policy and

distributing the SRG, disputes arose between the displaced

persons and the executing authorities of the State of M.P. In order

to resolve the same, the Government of Madhya Pradesh

constituted a Committee known as Grievance Redressal Authority.

4

Subsequently, the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a

notification dated 11.06.2002 extending the jurisdiction of the

Grievances Redressal Authority (GRA) to hear the grievances of

the displaced families of the Man Dam Project who started hearing

the grievances of the displaced families from July, 2002 with

regard to their rehabilitation and resettlement and continued to

pass orders on the grievances of the displaced families of Man

Dam Project till 2003.

7. Aggrieved by some of the orders passed by the GRA

as well as the inadequate measures adopted by the Government

of Madhya Pradesh for rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced

families of the ‘Man Dam Project’, the respondents 1 and 2 who

are tribals living in villages Khedi-Balwadi and Khanpura of District

Dhar alongwith Respondent No. 3 who is stated to be a social

activist working with the people of displaced families of Man Dam

Project which have been submerged by the Man Dam Project, filed

a writ petition in 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution as a PIL

claiming appropriate reliefs. Response of the State of Madhya

Pradesh was duly filed on 21.6.2004 in the writ petition No.

48/2004 and in paragraph B it was specifically stated that 62

project affected families who demanded land for land has been

given land and all the orders of GRA have been complied with

5

and thus substantial compliance of R & R Policy was also made.

On 17.2.2005, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed further reply to

the rejoinder of the petitioner – Bheru Singh in W.P.No.48/2004

and in paragraph B it was specifically stated that 62 project

affected families who demanded land for land has been given land

and with the help of SRG, the oustees have even purchased more

land comparatively to the lost land in the submergence and have

even saved the money.

8. Still further on 19.3.2009, the State of Madhya Pradesh

filed its reply in the writ petition No.48/2004 submitting the status

with regard to the rehabilitation of 448 families who had lost their

land in submergence. In the affidavit, the State of Madhya

Pradesh submitted that out of 448 families, 386 families accepted

the full cash compensation as per R & R Policy and remaining 62

who demanded land, have been allotted land in the year 1994

itself. Out of these 386 families, 337 families accepted SRG and

out of remaining of 49 families 26 families approached GRA for

allotment of land but their claim was rejected as they have

already accepted full cash compensation. Thereafter, on 1.5.2009,

the State of Madhya Pradesh filed further affidavit in the writ

petition No. 48/2004 wherein it was clarified that the cash

compensation was given to the land holders in 1995 with the

6

direction to the bank to initially disburse only 50 per cent of the

amount , with the balance 50 per cent being payable only after

obtaining an order in that behalf from the concerned Land

Acquisition Officer.

9. The Hon’ble High Court vide its impugned order dated

11.8.2009 passed in W.P.No.48/2004 was pleased to hold that

there was substantial compliance of R & R Policy but by relying

on a previous judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the

High Court of M.P. in W.P.No.4457/2007 (Narmada Bachao

Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) directed the State to allot

land to the adult son irrespective of the fact whether he had lost

the land or not. It has been stated herein by the State of Madhya

Pradesh that subsequently the three Judge Bench of the

Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 11.5.2011

passed in Civil Appeal No. 2082/2011 reported in (2011) 7 SCC

639 set aside the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed in

W.P.No.4457/2007 and held that the adult sons are not entitled for

allotment of land as per the R & R Policy. However, the High Court

vide its impugned judgment had already disposed of the writ

petition with the following directions:

“(i)We hold that there has been substantial compliance

of paragraphs 3.2(a) and 3.2 (b) of the Rehabilitation Policy

which provides for allotment of agricultural land,

7

government or private, to the displaced families and there

is no violation of fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, no

direction need be given by this court in this regard;

(ii)We hold that SRG amount together with

compensation paid to the displaced families computed on

the basis of average sale price per acre prevalent in the

year 1997-98 was sufficient to enable the displaced

families to purchase as much land was acquired from them

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and no decision can

be given by the Court to the Respondents/State to pay

SRG amount on the basis of average sale price of the year

2001-02, this being a policy matter;

(iii)We direct that every son who had become a major

on or before the date of notification under Section 4 of Land

Acquisition Act, but who was part of larger family from

whom land has been acquired will be treated as a

separate displaced family and would be allotted agricultural

land as per paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Rehabilitation Policy

for the Man Project and in case he does not opt for land in

accordance with paragraph 5 of Rehabilitation Policy, will

be paid SRG in addition to compensation under Land

Acquisition Act, in accordance with notification dated

7.3.2002 of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Narmada

Valley Development Authority, by the Respondents within

four months from today;

(iv)We hold that the definition of ‘displaced family’ in

paragraph 1(b) of the Rehabilitation Policy does not

discriminate against women and is not violative of Articles

14 and 21 of the Constitution, but women who are included

in the definition of “displaced persons” will be given those

benefits under the Rehabilitation Policy by the

Respondents which are to be given to “displaced persons;

(v)We hold that respondents were not entitled to

deduct the amount of compensation payable for trees and

wells located on the land of oustees as determined under

the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

from the SRG amount paid to the oustees and we direct the

respondents to refund such compensation amount to the

oustees with interest @ 9 per cent per annum calculated

from the date on which the amount was deducted till the

date on which the amount was deducted till the date on

which refund in made to them.”

8

10. The State of Madhya Pradesh which was respondent in

the writ petition before the High Court feeling aggrieved by the

decision of the High Court have filed this appeal arising out of the

SLP No. 30685/2009 under Article 136 of the Constitution

challenging directions Nos. (iii) and (v) issued by the High Court.

11. The respondents/displaced persons on the other hand

are also aggrieved of the directions of the High Court given out at

para Nos. (ii) and (iv) and have therefore separately filed Special

Leave Petition bearing SLP (C) No.10163/2010, wherein they have

essentially challenged the directions of the High Court by which it

has declined to grant the relief to the petitioners seeking a

direction for each displaced family. But specifically, the directions

of the High Court in paragraph No. 37 (i) (ii) and (iv) of the

impugned order and also partially the portion of direction No. 37

(iii) which directs payment of SRG in lieu of land entitlements in

paragraphs (iii) and (v) of R and R Policy to adult sons of

cultivators as well as failure of the High Court to pass directions

with regard to relief at clause 9 of the writ petition is under

challenge at the instance of the petitioner Bheru Singh and others

against the aforesaid directions.

9

12. The State of Madhya Pradesh in this appeal has

primarily raised substantial questions of law as to whether the

Hon’ble High Court has erred in law in holding that every son who

had become major on or before the date of notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is entitled for separate

allotment of land in spite of the fact that the issue regarding the

allotment of land to adult/major son was pending consideration

before the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court by its

interim order directed that the applications pertaining to allotment

of land to major son of oustees will not be disposed of or decided

by GRA till issue is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

13. The question has further been raised as to whether

the High Court has erred in holding whether the major son is a

‘displaced family’ or a ‘displaced person’ contrary to the R & R

Policy if he had not been cultivating land for at least one year

before the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act specially if he had not been cultivating the

land in the capacity of the land owner in absence of which he

would merely be a labourer.

14. Further question which has been raised at the instance

of State of Madhya Pradesh is whether the High Court has erred in

directing the petitioner to refund compensation payable for trees

10

and wells located on the land of the outstees with interest at the

rate of 9 per cent without appreciating the basic genesis of the

provisions of SRG. Still further, the question which has been

raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh is whether the High Court

has erred in directing the appellant State of Madhya Pradesh to

allot separate land to the major sons of the oustees of the Man

Dam in spite of the fact that the appellant-State has substantially

complied with the provisions of the rehabilitation policy and there is

no violation of right of livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India and the objective of the Rehabilitation Policy has already

been achieved.

15. Learned senior counsel Shri P.S. Patwalia, representing

the State of Madhya Pradesh, while assailing the impugned directions

of the High Court has first of all raised some preliminary issues. At the

outset, it was stated that a three Judge Bench of this Court vide its

judgment dated 11.5.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.2082/2011

reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 had set aside the judgment and order

dated 21.2.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ

Petition No.4457/2007 and it was pleased to hold that the adult sons

are entitled for allotment of land as per the R & R Policy.

16. As already stated earlier, the State of Madhya Pradesh

had constituted a Grievance Redressal Authority (‘GRA’ for short) by

11

order dated 11.6.2002 to hear the grievances of the oustees of Man

Project also and in the year 2003-2004, the construction of the Man

Dam was complete. Thereafter, 337 families out of 386 families had

accepted SRG and out of the remaining 49 families, 26 families

approached GRA for the allotment of land but their claim was rejected

as they had already accepted the full cash compensation. This

prompted the oustees in the year 2007 to file a writ petition bearing

No.4457/2007 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which gave rise

to Civil Appeal No. 2082/2011 which was heard and decided by a three

Judge Bench vide its judgment and order dated 11.5.2011 reported in

(2011) 7 SCC 639. As a consequence thereof, the three Judge Bench

of this Court set aside the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed

in Writ Petition No. 4457/2007 and was pleased to hold that the adult

sons are not entitled for allotment of separate holding of land as per

the R & R Policy.

17. It appears that the controversy did not set at rest even

after this judgment as writ petition No. 48/2004 was filed by the

respondent-Bheru Singh and others by way of a public interest

litigation and the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and

order dated 11.8.2009 which is under challenge herein issuing certain

directions quoted hereinbefore. As already stated, the State of

Madhya Pradesh is aggrieved by some of the directions recorded

12

hereinbefore and the oustees- Bheru Singh and others also are

aggrieved in view of some other directions quoted hereinbefore. As

such they have also filed an appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 10163 of

2010. But this contention of the Respondent-Bheru Singh and Ors.

who are Petitioners/Appellants in their appeal are common which shall

be recorded and dealt with later at the appropriate stage.

18. However, while dealing with the submissions and

contentions of learned counsel for the Appellant-State of M.P., it is

necessary to record the submissions of the counsel for the appellant,

State of M.P. who, while assailing the impugned directions of the High

Court, first of all submitted that vague pleadings have been

incorporated in the writ petition including multiple cause of action. It

was submitted that a reading of the case of the respondent-Bheru

Singh who was petitioner in the High Court would show that the

petitioner challenged 426 different orders passed by the GRA without

any factual basis. No factual details have been laid down in the

petition either by giving facts relating to each of those cases or the

circumstance under which the orders were passed. Commenting

upon the contents of the writ petition, it was pointed out that the

petition is claimed to have been filed on behalf of several thousand

persons but there is no proper affidavit supporting the petition of any

individual on whose behalf it is purported to have been filed. The

13

petition contains a vague allegation of non-compliance of R & R Policy

which is actually a roving enquiry. It was submitted at this stage that

this PIL was liable to be rejected by the High Court at the very

threshold for want of proper pleadings and material to substantiate

the averments/allegations contained therein.

19. However, the learned Judges of the High Court took notice

of the fact that the Court had to strike a balance between the interest

of the parties in a PIL and had to take into consideration the pitiable

conditions of oustees, their poverty, inarticulateness, illiteracy, extent

of backwardness and unawareness also. However, the High Court

should have taken note of the observation wherein it was observed

that in future it was desirable that the Court must view presentation

of any matter by the NBA with caution and care insisting on proper

pleadings, disclosure of full facts truly and fairly and should insist for

an affidavit of some responsible person in support of facts contained

therein. It was submitted that in view of this observation, the petition

was fit to be dismissed as the same lacked material particulars being

completely vague which was not supported by a proper affidavit and

was, therefore, liable to be rejected at the threshold.

20. Learned counsel then raised the question of delay and

laches on the part of the petitioner-Bheru Singh who is respondent in

the main appeal as it was stated that the writ petition was filed by the

14

respondent-Bheru Singh at a time when the Man Dam had already

been completely constructed. It was thus an effort to upset a settled

state of affairs at such a belated stage which has an upsetting effect on

settled society. Such a belated petition was, therefore, liable to be

rejected on the ground of laches and delay specially when this issue

has already been dealt with by the III

rd

Narmada judgment which is

reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639.

21. In so far as the contentions of the counsel for the State of

Madhya Pradesh in regard to the main directions are concerned, it is

the case of the State of M.P. that the R & R Policy prescribes a

comprehensive scheme as to who is entitled for land and

simultaneously how the cost of land to be allotted is recoverable by the

State. Clause 3.2(a) specifically envisages that it is only a displaced

family from whom more than 25% of its land have been acquired who

is entitled for land. This loss of land is the pre-requisite to create

entitlement. The scheme then continues under Clause 5.1 which

envisages that the cost of acquired land is to be made out of the

compensation payable for the land which one has lost. Thus, if a

person does not lose any land then he is not entitled to any

compensation and would not be able to pay for the land for which he

is not covered by the R & R Policy. However, this does not mean

that an adult son who is treated as a separate family is not entitled to

15

any benefit in the policy. He still gets a number of benefits for which a

family is entitled under Clause 6.1, 7.1 and 8.1 of the R & R Policy.

22. Elaborating on the question involved, it was next submitted

that under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the adult son

who has become major on or before the date of notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is considered to be a separate

family and clause 3 of the R & R also provides for allotment of land in

lieu of land. Clause 3.2(a) provides for every displaced family

including major son from whom more than 25% of its land holding is

acquired in revenue villages or forest villages shall be entitled to and

as far as possible the land to the extent of the land acquired from it.

This loss of land is essential before one can become entitled to land

for land from the State Government. Reiterating the submission, it was

submitted that as per Clause 3.2(a) of the R & R Policy, adult son will

be entitled for land as far as possible only if some land belonging to

him as on date of the Section 4 notification under Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 was actually acquired from him and clause 5 of the R & R

Policy provides for recovery of the cost of allotted land.

23. Learned counsel appearing the appellant-State of Madhya

Pradesh further invited the attention of this Court to certain important

features of the R & R Policy in order to impress upon this Court that

the oustees have been duly compensated for the acquired land with

16

beneficial schemes incorporated therein. It was stated that clause 5.1

of the R & R Policy provides that 50 of the compensation for the

acquired land was permitted to be retained as initial instalment

towards payment of the cost of the land to be allotted to the oustees.

Clauses 5.2 and 5.3 further provided that the balance cost of the

allotted land will be treated as interest free land to be recovered within

20 equal yearly instalments and clause 5.1 provided that if the

displaced family did not wish to obtain land in lieu of land and claim full

payment of the compensation, they could do so but with a rider that

this option once exercised, the displaced families could not lay any

claim for land afterwards. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned

counsel that if impugned direction of he High Court in the judgment

and order under challenge dated 11.8.2009 directing to allot land to

each and every major son irrespective of the fact whether any land

was acquired from them or not, would make the clauses 5.1, 5.2 and

5.3 of R & R Policy as inoperative. It was contended that if no land

was acquired from the adult son as a separate land holder then how

would the cost of the land be recovered from them.

24. Learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh in order

to reinforce his submission on the aforesaid aspects first of all placed

reliance on the judgment and order reported in (2000)10 SCC 664

commonly referred to as first Narmada judgment wherein this Court

17

(Supreme Court) has held that the rehabilitation and resettlement

packages in the three states were different due to geographical and

economic conditions and availability of the land. The States have

liberalised their policies and decided to allot land to adult son and

daughter over and above the NWDT Award. Heavy reliance has

been placed by the counsel on the judgment of this Court reported in

(2011) 7 SCC 639 referred to as III

rd

Narmada judgment wherein this

Court has examined the R & R Policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh

and inter alia has held that the issue has to be decided by strict

adherence to the amended R & R Policy in view of which all adult sons

of a displaced family is not entitled for allotment of separate unit of land

as it would lead to absurd results and unjust enrichment at the

expense of the State exchequer. The relevant paragraph specifically

states as follows:

“96.The rehabilitation has to be done to the extent of the

displacement. The rehabilitation is compensatory in

nature with a view to ensure that the oustee and his

family are at least restored to the status that was existing

on the date of the commencement of the proceedings

under the 1894 Act. There was no intention on behalf of

the State to have awarded more land treating a major son

to be a separate unit. This would otherwise bring about an

anomaly, as is evident from the chart that has been

gainfully reproduced hereinabove. The idea of

rehabilitation was, therefore, not to distribute largesse of

the State that may reflect distribution totally

disproportionate to the extent of the land acquired. The

State has, therefore, rightly resisted this demand of the

writ petitioners and, in our opinion, for the High Court to

18

presuppose or assume a separate unit for each major son

far above the land acquired, was neither justified nor

legally sustainable.”

25. It was submitted that the Supreme Court while further

examining and scrutinizing the clauses 3.2, 5.1 and other provisions of

the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. as also that allotment of land to

adult son from whom no land is acquired, will amount to unjust

enrichment which is against the law.

26. In order to add further weight to the submission, it was

submitted that in fact the III

rd

Narmada judgment (2011) 7 SCC 639

has examined the issues in detail after which it was concluded that if

the interpretation is sought to be given by the Narmada Bachao

Andolan and the same is accepted, it would lead to absurd results, for

instance, if a family of three joint khatedars have 3-4 sons losing

only 2 hectares of land and each major son would claim 2 hectares

separately, then the family would end up getting 26 hectares of land. It

was contended that this was never the intention of the R & R Policy

and the conclusion drawn by three Judge Bench cannot be

overlooked. Thus the entire emphasis of the appellant-State of M.P. is

on the three Judge Bench of (2011) 7 SC 639 as also other judgments

reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664, (2005) 4 SCC 32 which has

incorporated the NWDT Award. But it was also submitted that the

19

2005 judgment interpreting the NWDT Award which has no

application to the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. in regard to the

displaced persons of the Man Dam Project.

27. Learned counsel submitted that in the first place there is,

in fact, no discordant note between the II

nd

Narmada judgment

reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32 and III

rd

Narmada judgment reported in

(2011) 7 SCC 639. In fact, it was contended that the II

nd

Narmada

judgment interpreting NWDT Award relates to an inter state project

rather than R & R Policy of the State of M.P. while the issue before the

III

rd

Narmada judgment was interpretation of the State Policy i.e. R &

R Policy which was not an issue for consideration by the Hon’ble

Judges delivering the II

nd

and III

rd

Narmada judgment reported in

(2000) 10 SCC 664 and (2005) 4 SCC 32. According to the learned

counsel , the II

nd

Narmada judgment contained an inadvertent error as

it refers only to a particular paragraph (para 176) of the I

st

Narmada

judgment reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664 without considering the

importance of other paragraphs at paragraphs 152 and 156. In

paragraph 152, it was categorically noted by the I

st

Narmada

judgment that all states except Madhya Pradesh in that case were

ready to give land to major sons and on this account the Court

observed whether this inadvertent error should be allowed to

perpetuate if the policy states otherwise.

20

28. Placing reliance on the III

rd

Narmada judgment reported in

(2011) 7 SCC 639 holding therein that under the R & R Policy there is

no entitlement of land for land for major son, it was submitted that this

finding recorded by three Hon’ble Judges Bench after noticing and

interpreting the earlier judgments i.e. (2000) 10 SCC 664, (2005) 4

SCC 32 would be binding on the present Bench comprising of two

Hon’ble Judges and hence the views expressed therein should hold

the field in this appeal/matter also filed by the State of M.P. It was

contended that a fresh interpretation of the R & R Policy to the extent

of giving land to major son would result in a total arbitrary

implementation of the policy has not been approved by the Bench of

three Judges vide (2011) 7 SCC 639 and in case this Court found that

there were divergence of views in the judgment referred to

hereinbefore and relied upon by the State of M.P., the matter may be

referred to a larger bench. If this Hon’ble Court comes to the

conclusion that there are divergent views of co-strength bench on the

issue of the allotment of land to adult son in (2000) 10 SCC 664 I

st

Narmada Judgment and (2005) 4 SCC 32- II

nd

Narmada judgment and

(2011) 7 SCC 639-III

rd

Narmada judgment.

29. In so far as the impugned direction of the High Court

concluding that value of trees and wells could not have been

deducted from the amount payable as SRG, it was submitted that

21

compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is to be determined as

per Section 23 of the said Act and apart from the market rate, value of

the land, the damage sustained by taking standing crops or trees is

part of compensation as also the damage sustained by person

interested on account of loss of land. Thus loss of trees and wells is

part of compensation plaid under the Land Acquisition Act and the

formula for calculating SRG is given in two Government orders dated

31.2.2002 which is a general order and dated 7.3.2002 which is a

specific order for the Man Dam Project. It was submitted that once

compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act is to be

deducted then the same would include the complete compensation

paid for the land, trees, wells, solatium, interest etc. and, therefore, it

was submitted that the finding of the High Court on this issue is

liable to be reversed. Reliance was also placed on the ratio of the

decision reported in (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 637 State of Haryana vs.

Gurcharan Singh and Anr. wherein this Court had held that it is well

settled law that the Collector or the Court who determined the

compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot

determine them separately as the compensation is in regard to the

value of the acquired land.

30. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel representing

respondent –Bheuru Singh & Ors. - who was the petitioner in the High

22

Court and are also appellant in the connected appeal, refuted the

contentions of the counsel for the State of M.P. and first of all referred

to the relevant provisions of R & R Policy relating to displaced family.

He has, therefore, extracted the relevant provisions in this regard for

ready reference which is as follows:-

“1.1 (b) Displaced Family--(i) A family composed of

displaced persons as defined above shall include

husband, wife and minor children and other persons

dependent on the head of the family, eg. Widowed

mother, widowed sister, unmarried daughter or old

father.

(ii) Every son/un-married daughter who has become

major on or before the date of Notification under

section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, will be treated as

a separate family.”

3.2 (a) Every displaced family from whom more than

25 percent of its land is acquired in revenue villages or

forest villages shall be entitled to the extent of land

acquired from it, and shall be allotted such land,

subject to provision in 3.2 below.

(b) A minimum area of 2 ha. 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 ha. of land is acquired from a family, it will be

allotted equal and, subject to a ceiling of 8 ha.

(c) The government will assist displaced families in

providing irrigation by well/tube-well or any other

method on the land allotted, provided such land is not

already irrigated…”

23

31. Relying on the aforesaid provision it was contended that

under the R & R Policy every joint land holder is treated as a displaced

family and is entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land. So if there

are three joint land holders in a joint land holding they will each be

entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land. While explaining this, it

was stated that if the name of the adult son had been recorded on the

title as a joint land holder, he would have been entitled to 2 hectares

of land as a land holder had the acquired land been partitioned prior to

acquisition, the adult son whose family land held in the name of the

head of the family is being acquired and who undisputedly has rights

on the land had he been recorded as joint title holder, he would have

been entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land each. It was,

therefore, submitted that it would be discriminatory to deny the

opportunity to obtain a viable livelihood after displacement to the adult

sons who have rights on these lands simply because there was no

partition due to customary practices. It was sought to be explained

that this is the tribal area where culturally lands are not partitioned till

the death of the head of the family. Thus many of the adults sons are

themselves very old. It was submitted that in fact para 2.1 of the R &

R Policy expressly required that all relevant land records would be

brought up to date expeditiously for ensuring adequate compensation

and allotment of land to displaced persons. However, the same was

24

never done. It was contended that if the land records had been

updated, the adult sons would have been included in the land records

as joint holders and would have been entitled to a minimum of 2

hectares of land in their own right. The State Government in order to

conclude the matter formulated the provision that every adult son will

be treated as a separate family.

32. It was still further submitted that the vision of the R & R

Policy that every family dependent on land facing force displacement,

which has to severe its link with family lands hitherto relied on,

must be provided a viable land based livelihood on a minimum viable

land holding 2 hectares of land which would be entirely in consonance

with the socialist vision of the Constitution and the Fundamental

Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The minimum

entitlement of 2 hectares of land is also in consonance with the vision

of the planning process indicating national development which

requires both the victims and the beneficiaries of such product to

become better off from the project and project resources. It was

submitted that this Court has also emphatically taken the view that

the oustees on development projects must be made better off after

their displacement at project cost and as per the R & R Policy framed

by the Government under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also

submitted that the R & R Policy of the Government of Madhya

25

Pradesh requires the allotment of land even to encroachers. The

State of M.P. also has programme for the allotment of land to

landless SC and ST families. Thus the well considered provisions of

the R & R Policy which require the allotment of a minimum of 2

hectares of land to the adult sons of cultivators whose family land is

being acquired as separate families is a valuable part of the social-

economic programme part designed to meet goals of the Constitution.

33. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant-State of M.P., Mr. Bhushan submitted that the provisions for

the treatment of adult sons as a separate family for the allotment of a

minimum of 2 hectares of land is the same under the NWDT Award

and the R & R Policy of the State. Learned counsel has placed

reliance on the II

nd

Narmada judgment of High Court for the definition

of ‘adult son’ as separate family and allotment of land reported in

(2005) 4 SCC 32. It was submitted that as per the definition of

oustee, an oustee means any person who at least one year prior to

the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act has been

ordinarily residing or cultivating land or carrying on any trade,

occupation or calling or working for gain in the area likely to be

submerged permanently or temporarily and the definition of family

includes husband, wife and minor children and other persons

dependent on the head of the family, for example, widowed mother.

26

34. Learned counsel for the respondent/appellant in the

connected appeal also submitted that in fact the R & R Policy was

formulated by adopting the provisions of the NWDT Award which may

be seen from the minutes of the meeting dated 9.6.1987 of the

Committee of Secretaries which formulated the R & R Policy. The

High Court in the impugned judgment has also held that the State

Government adopted similar definition of displaced family in the R & R

Policy as is present in the NWDT Award. It was, therefore, submitted

that the provisions of the NWDT Award and the R & R Policy are in

pari materia on the basis of which it has been contended that the

view taken by the learned Judges in the II

nd

Narmada judgment

reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32, adult sons of cultivators are entitled to a

minimum of 2 hectares of land as separate families wherein the

specific question was considered as to whether adult sons of

cultivators are entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land as per the

NWDT Award. Learned counsel specifically referred to the question

which was considered in (2005) 4 SCC 32 judgment which is quoted

as follows:-

“Whether adult sons are entitled to a minimum of 2

hectares of land as per NWDT Award and

judgment of this Court?”

27

35. Learned counsel placed reliance on certain portions of the

judgment which was follows:-

“59.The definition of family indisputably

includes major sons. A plain reading of the said

definition clearly shows that even where a major

son of the land-holder did not possess land

separately, he would be entitled to grant of a

separate holding.

64. One major son comes within the purview of

expansive definition of family, it would be

idle to contend that the scheme of giving

‘land for land’ would be applicable to only

those major sons who were landholders in

their own rights if a person was a

landholder, he in his own right would be

entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation

scheme and, thus, for the said purpose, an

expansive definition of family was not

necessarily to be rendered. Furthermore, if

such a meaning is attributed as has been

suggested by Mr. Vaidyanathan, the

definition of ‘family’ to an extent would

become obscure. As a major son

constitutes ‘separate family’ within the

interpretation clause of ‘family’ no meaning

thereto can be given.”

36. Placing reliance on the aforesaid portion of the judgment

of this Court, it was submitted that this Hon’ble Court has decisively

interpreted the treatment of adult sons as separate family and relying

on similar provisions for treatment of adult sons as separate family

and for allotment of a minimum of 2 hectares of land in the NWDT

Award and the R & R Policy, the High Court vide its impugned

28

judgment has rightly held that the oustees of the Man Dam Project

are also entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land as per the R & R

Policy. It was submitted that the judgment and order dated 15.3.2005

of this Court was accepted and fully implemented by an order of the

State Government dated 16.6.2005 by providing benefits to several

thousands adults sons which may be seen from the order of the State

Government dated 16.6.2005 which states that it is in compliance of

judgment and order of this Hon’ble Court dated 15.3.2005 holding

that in the case of cultivators losing more than 25% of the land, the

adult sons will be entitled to 2 hectares of land and while computing

the SRG for adult sons, the previous compensation will be taken to be

zero.

37. It was next contended on behalf of the

oustees/Respondents that in this case, the State has relied on the

reasonings of the judgment and order of a three Member Bench dated

11.5.2011 reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 referred to as III

rd

Narmada

judgment in order to challenge the finding of the judgment and order

dated 11.8.2009 reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32 i.e. II

nd

Narmada

judgment with regard to land allotment to adult sons which is not

legally permissible and in case this court finds conflicting judgment the

matter may be referred to a Larger Bench.

29

38. While considering the rival submissions of the counsel for

the contesting parties in both the appeals, it is manifestly clear that the

principal contentious issue between the State of Madhya Pradesh and

the displaced persons/oustees is in regard to the claim of land for

each major son of the land holders family as according to the oustees,

the definition of displaced family in paragraph 1(b) of the R & R Policy

discloses that every son who has become major on or before the date

of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, will be

treated as a separate family. As already noted, this has given rise to

several rounds of litigation in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh due

to which three judgments have been delivered by this Court and for

facility of reference they have been termed as Narmada Bachao

Andolan I

st

, Narmada Bacaho Andolan II

nd

and Narmada Bachao

Andolan III

rd

judgments. However, in Narmada Bachoa Andolan I, the

question of entitlement of land in favour of each major son of the

family was neither considered but Narmada Bachao Andolan II

reported in (2005) 4 SCC 32, the question clearly came up for

consideration regarding entitlement of land by major sons which

according to the learned three Judge Bench indisputably includes

major sons in view of the definition of family. A three Judge Bench of

this Court in the said matter observed that even on a plain reading of

the definition, it clearly shows that even where a major son of the land

30

holder did not possess land separately, he would be entitled to grant

of separate holding. It was held that the definition of ‘family’ has to

be read along with that of ‘ oustee’ and it was noted that ‘outsee

family’ and ‘displaced family’ have interchangeably been used in

the award. It was, therefore, observed that they thus carry the same

meaning. This Court also took notice of paragraph 152 of the main

judgment i.e. Naramda Bachao Andolan I judgment wherein this

Court noticed that every affected family must be allotted land, house,

plot and other amenities and this was in terms of the tribunal’s award

wherein it was held that the sons who had become major on or prior

to the issuance of notification of Land Acquisition Act were entitled to

be allotted land and since the interpretation clause used an inclusive

definition, it would be expansive in nature. It was, therefore, held that

as follows:

“Once major son comes within the purview of the

expansive definition of family, it would be idle to

contend that the scheme of giving “land for land”

would be applicable to only those major sons who

were landholders in their own rights. If a person

was a landholder, he in his own right would be

entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation scheme and,

thus, for the said purpose, an expansive definition

of family was not necessarily to be rendered.

Furthermore, if such a meaning is attributed as has

been suggested by Mr. Vaidyanathan, the

definition of “family” would to an extent become

obscure. As a major son constitutes “separate

family” within the interpretation clause of “family”, no

meaning thereto can be given.………The court

31

further observed that the award provided that every

displaced family whose 25% or more agricultural

land holding hs been acquired , shall be entitled to

be allotted irrigable land to the extent of land

acquired subject to prescribed ceiling of the State

with a minimum of 2 hectares of land.”

39. Thus in view of this judgment the respondent oustees

could have approached the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) for

allotment of land in terms of the judgment if they felt that the GRA was

not examining the grievance in the light of the law laid down by this

Court in the II

nd

Narmada Judgment (2005) 4 SCC 32. However, the

oustees respondents Bheru Singh and others instead of approaching

the G.R.A. approached the High court by way of a writ petition No.

48/2004 in which judgment was delivered by the Division Bench on

11.8.2009 out of which these appeals arise and in this judgment the

learned Judges followed the judgment and order of the II

nd

Narmada

Bachao Andolan referred to hereinabove as the subsequent III

rd

judgment of 2011 (Supra) had not been delivered by that time. Hence

the High Court was pleased to hold vide the impugned judgment that

although there has been substantial compliance of R & R Policy

which provides for allotment of agricultural land government or private

to the displaced family and there is no violation of fundamental right

to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, it was

further pleased to direct that every son who had become major on or

32

before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act but who was part of their family from whom land had been acquired

will be treated as a separate displaced family and would be allotted

agricultural land in accordance with paragraph 3 and 5 of the R & R

Policy for the Man Dam Project and in case he does not opt land for

land in accordance with paragraph 5 of the R & R Policy, he will be

paid Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) in addition to the

compensation under the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with the

order dated 7.3.2002 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh Narmada

Valley Development Authority by the respondents within four months

from that date.

40. As already stated, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the

oustee respondents Nos. 1 & 2 along with social activist respondent

No.3 filed separate special leave petition in this Court on 9.11.2009

and 1.2.2010. But it appears that in the meantime, another appeal

had been entertained by this Court bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 2115-

2116/2011 arising out of an interim order passed by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh in writ petition No.4457/2007 entitled Narmada

Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the High Court

as an interim measure had issued direction inter alia for allotment

of agricultural land to the displaced persons in lieu of the land

acquired for the construction of the dam in terms of the Rehabilitation

33

and Resettlement 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 opted for such land and refund 50% of

the compensation amount received by them. The balance cost of the

allotted land was to be deposited by the allottee in 20 equal yearly

instalments as per clause 5.3 of the R & R Policy and it further directed

to treat a major son of the family whose land had been acquired as a

separate family for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land. During

the pendency of the appeals of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the

respondents, the judgment and order was delivered by a Bench of

three Judges of this Court wherein the question of entitlement of each

major son of a displaced family was taken into consideration and it

was observed therein that the rehabilitation has to be done to the

extent of the displacement. It was further held that rehabilitation was

compensatory in nature with a view to ensure that the oustee and his

family are at least restored to the status that was existing on the date

of commencement of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,

1894. There was no intention on behalf of the State to have awarded

more land treating a major son to be a separate unit. It was further

observed that the idea of rehabilitation was not to distribute largesse

of the State that may reflect distribution of total disproportionate to the

extent of land acquired and therefore, the State had rightly registered

34

this demand of the oustee- writ petitioners directing a separate unit for

each major son for the above land acquired, was neither justified nor

legally permissible. It was, therefore, held that in effect the major

son would not be entitled to anything additional as his separate share

in the original holding and it will not get enhanced by the fiction

definition as stated in the impugned judgment. The major sons,

however, would be entitled to his share in the area which is to be

allotted to the tenure holder on rehabilitation in case he is entitled to

such share in the land applicable to the particular State.

41. On perusal of the ratio of the two decisions of this Court

referred to hereinabove viz. 2005 (4) SCC 32 and (2011) 7 SCC 639,

they undoubtedly appear to be in conflict with each other in regard to

the claim of share by each major son of the family of land holder

whose land has been acquired. This Court, therefore, is clearly

confronted with two conflicting views on the claim of entitlement of a

major son for a separate share in the land holders family and in view of

this it would have been a fit case for reference of this matter before a

Constitution Bench of 5 Judges for determination of the question as to

whether all major sons of a displaced family would be entitled to 2

hectares of land in view of the R & R Policy of the State of M.P.

42. But on a careful consideration of the matter, it is manifestly

clear that the dispute between the State of M.P. and the displaced

35

family on the question of entitlement of a major son do not arise out of

a statute like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Hindu Succession

Act or Land Ceiling Act or any other similar Act in order to treat the

issue as the purely a legal controversy giving rise to a conflicting

situation regarding the entitlement of land to a major son of a family

which would give rise for determination of the question as to whether

all major sons of the land holders family who might be constituting joint

family would be entitled to 2 hectares of land separately or only

through the main land holder of a displaced family in order to be

entitled to 2 hectares of land arising out of a Policy decision. This

marathon exercise that have been done giving rise to repeated rounds

of litigation for determination of the question as to whether major sons

would be included in the definition of the displaced family or not in our

view is not really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provision

which needs to be addressed since the entire issue is merely a

question which arises out of a policy decision of the Government of

M.P. and at the most would be confined to interpretation of the R & R

Policy formulated by the State of M.P. We, therefore, refrain from

referring this question of entitlement of major son to a separate holding

to a larger Bench as it needs to be highlighted that this controversy

arises out of Policy decision and has clearly not emerged from any

ambiguity in the Land Acquisition Act or any statute or an Act having a

36

bearing in future on other similar controversy so as to refer it to a

Constitution Bench of this Court.

43. Thus, when the claim or entitlement of land is based

exclusively on a Policy decision of the Government of M.P. which have

been incorporated in the R & R Policy, the entitlement clearly would be

based strictly on the Policy decision formulated by the Government of

M.P. which clearly lays down as follows:

“24(IV(7) Allotment of agricultural lands.—Every

displaced family from whom more than 25% of its

land holding is acquired shall be entitled to and be

allotted irrigable land to the extent of land acquired

from it subject to the prescribed ceiling in the State

concerned and a minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres)

per family…………..”

44. This policy holds a displaced family entitled to 2 hectares of

land but it further envisages actual displacement from the acquired

land which is 25% meaning thereby that only such displaced family

from whom more than 25% of its land holding has been acquired

would be entitled for compensation of 2 hectares of land from whom

land has been acquired and this displacement from land would not

merely be notional. The R & R policy unequivocally lays down its

entire emphasis on acquisition of land from a displaced family and that

displacement also has to be 25% of the land acquired from the family

37

by the Government. Thus even if the displaced family had several

major sons, allotment on account of acquisition to each major son do

not arise in terms of the policy. Even at the risk of repetition it needs

to be highlighted that when there has been no acquisition from each

major son of the family, the question of allotment of land to all major

sons of the family would be clearly contrary to the provision of the R &

R Policy. The entire right of the respondent/oustee in this litigation

flows from the R & R Policy of the State of M.P. and it is crystal clear

that the redeeming feature of the policy is acquisition of 25% land of

the displaced family. Therefore, even if the displaced family

constituted of several major sons, the acquisition of 25% of land from

each major son is completely missing, and, therefore, we do not see

any reason as to why we should allow the parties to be bogged down

into further litigation for determination of the question as to whether all

major sons of a displaced family are entitled to a separate unit of 2

hectares of land or only the land holder of the displaced family would

be entitled. Hence, the direction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

vide its impugned judgment for allotment of land to each major son of

the displaced family needs to be overturned.

45. There is yet another reason for us for disapproving the

direction of the High Court as the High Court, in our view, was not

justified in entertaining a writ petition by way of public interest

38

litigation when the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had already dealt

with the question against which the appeal also travelled upto this

Court and was seized of other writ petitions on the question. In regard

to the above question, we take note of a decision of this Court in

Joydeep Mukharjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in

(2011) 2 SCC 706 wherein this Court had been pleased to hold that

the jurisdiction even of the Supreme Court:

“in a public interest litigation cannot be pressed into

service where matters have already been

completely and effectively adjudicated upon not

only in individual petitions but even in writ petitions

raising the larger question as was raised in the

earlier writ petition.”

The learned Judges have been pleased to hold that:

principles of finality and fairness demand that there

should be an end to litigation and it is in public

interest that issues settled by judgment of the

court which have attained finality should not be

permitted to be re-agitated all over again.

46. Taking note of the aforesaid observation fraught with

wisdom, we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in

entertaining a writ petition all over again by way of a Public Interest

Litigation when the question of implementation of R & R Policy had

been considered and decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

earlier giving rise to appeals up to this Court. Besides this, the High

Court in the impugned judgment itself has laid down that there had

39

been substantial compliance of the R & R Policy of the Government of

M.P. and yet it was pleased to direct the respondent-State/appellant

herein to consider the question of allotment of 2 hectares of land to

each major son of a displaced family overlooking the fact that if each

major son of the displaced family had not been separately deprived of

25% of the acquired land, then even as per the Policy, they were not

entitled to 2 hectares of land. In that view of the matter also the

direction of the High Court travels beyond the scope of R & R Policy.

The High Court in any view had no reason to expand the scope of R &

R Policy by directing the State of M.P. to allot land to each of the

displaced family.

47. However, we are conscious of the fact that in the process

of allotment, it is quite possible that some of the oustees might have

been deprived of the land who were separately holding the acquired

land. But in order to ensure effective implementation, there is already

a Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) and if the oustees have any

grievance in regard to non-implementation of the R & R Policy in so

far as their entitlement as per the policy is concerned, they would be

free to move the GRA for redressal of their grievance. But a blanket

direction as given out by the High Court to allot land to each major

son of a displaced family without any averment to the effect that they

were deprived of 25% of acquired land separately, the plea that the

40

State of M.P. should consider their grievance and allot them land

appears to be contrary to the R & R Policy. Acquisition of 25% of land

is a condition precedent to become eligible for allotment of 2 hectares

of land. We, therefore, feel the need to clarify that we have not

entered into the area of determination of the question as to whether

major son of a family is entitled to a separate unit or not as in our view

even if we were to follows (2005) 4 SCC 32 and were to hold that

each major son of a displaced family is entitled to a separate unit of

compensatory land, deprivation of 25% of land from them is totally

missing and if that is so, we fail to understand as to how we can allow

the respondents to reopen this question after four years of revision of

R & R Policy. Learned counsel for the respondent Bheru Singh, no

doubt, had submitted that this Court had to take into consideration the

indigent status of the affected parties. But when a social activist takes

up the cause for the oustees, it is expected of them to take a

balanced view of the cause raised on behalf of the affected party in

the light of the policy which is formulated and made effective by the

State authorities. We undoubtedly also appreciate the laudable effort

made by the social activist taking up the cause for the rehabilitation of

the oustees but in the process we are under constraint as we cannot

overlook the practical fall out/consequences by allowing them to take

up the cause of the oustees oblivious of its consequence or the

41

administrative fall out since a cause cannot be allowed to be raised

incessantly by indulging in multiplicity of proceedings which at times

do more harm to the cause than seek cure for the misery of the

affected parties. In fact, in our view, if anyone concerned including an

activist genuinely and bona fide feels that full justice has not been

done to the cause they raised would do well to use their effort and

good offices by persuading the administrative machinery with the

assistance, the leadership for rectifying the policy decision and getting

the matter clarified rather than travelling to the court by filing one writ

petition after the other unsettling the settled position by way of fresh

round of litigation in the form of Public Interest Litigation.

48. However, in view of the meticulous analysis of the R & R

Policy in the instant matter in the light of the statement of the counsel

for the parties as also the decisions relied upon by them, we are of the

view that the direction of the High Court in spite of its finding that R &

R Policy has been substantially complied, has gone beyond the

ambit of the R & R Policy and has generated a controversy as to

whether all major sons of a displaced family are entitled to a separate

unit of land or not under the R & R Policy which has clearly laid

emphasis on the fact that only those displaced families would be

entitled to 2 hectares of land from whom 25% of their separate

holding of land had been acquired which inference in our view is the

42

only inference which can reasonably be drawn from the relevant

provision of the R & R Policy.

49. However, the counsel for the respondent/appellant Bheru

Singh and others have given out large number of factual details stating

that the GRA has committed grave errors while dealing with the

representation and grievance of the oustees which is not possible for

this Court to examine nor it lies within the ambit and scope of Article

136 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, we find substance in the

argument advanced that the oustees/displaced persons come from the

weak and vulnerable tribal population whose plea may get ignored or

are not properly addressed. Hence for this purpose and in order to

impart full justice to the cause in terms of the R & R Policy, it is

desirable that the State Government may constitute an appellate forum

where the aggrieved party may challenge the decision of the GRA in

case there is any justifiable reason to do so. This appellate forum in

our view should include a sitting or retired District Judge and an

administrative member under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge of

the High Court which will oversee whether the R & R Policy has been

effectively and accurately implemented and whether the SRG have

been properly distributed in the light of the grievance raised by the

displaced persons. This appellate forum in our view appears to be

essential in order to supervise and oversee by way of an appellate

43

forum and hear the grievance of the affected displaced persons arising

out of implementation of the R & R Policy and SRG as also to ventilate

the grievances of affected persons. However, this appellate forum

shall not enter into any question relating to interpretation of the R & R

Policy but by and large examine whether the benefit of the R & R

Policy has been allowed to be availed by the oustees or not. In effect it

would confine itself to the questions relating to compliance of the

R & R Policy and distribution of Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) in

terms of the provisions enumerated therein.

50. As a consequence of the above analysis, deliberation and

consideration, the appeal arising out of special leave petition(c)

No.30685/09 of the State of Madhya Pradesh stands allowed and the

appeal arising out of special leave petition (c) 10163/2010 of the

oustees is disposed of with liberty to the respondents-oustees to

approach the GRA or the Appellate Forum of GRA in case they have

been deprived of adequate compensation or benefit in any manner

which is not in consonance with the R & R Policy. We further grant

liberty to the respondents including the social activist-Respondent No.3

to take up the matter before the Government of M.P. for rectification or

further amendment of the Policy in case they are able to establish and

make out a case that the revision of R & R Policy 2003 still further

requires rectification or improvement as there can be no limitation of

44

time for reviewing or reframing a Policy decision if it has to serve the

cause of eradicating human suffering specially if it has emerged as a

consequence of the state activity like the land acquisition where the

affected parties lost their home and cultivable land. However, under

the circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………..J.

(Asok Kumar Ganguly)

……………………………..J.

(Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi

February 01, 2012

45