Legal Analysis on Compensation Rate for Acquired Land

Delve into the detailed legal analysis provided by the Court regarding the compensation rate for acquired land in this complex case. The Court’s interpretation of the directives and its application of legal principles are crucial aspects that shape the outcome of the dispute. Stay tuned for insights into the intricacies of this legal matter.

Facts

• The applicant’s total land holding was 7.741 hectares, with 4.293 hectares being affected (55% of total holding).
• Total compensation payable was Rs 5,48,072, and 4.293 hectares of land was allotted to the applicant in Village Talwada of Tehsil Dhaar.
• Applicant raised concerns about the proposed Charnoi land allotment which was considered non-cultivable.
• R&R Policy mandated two hectares of land allotment to ‘oustee’ families whose lands were acquired.
• The High Court order was challenged through a Special Leave Petition.
• Narmada Valley Development Authority acquired 4.293 hectares of land, entitling the applicant to the allotment of equivalent agricultural land.
• The Tribunal’s Award of 12 December 1979 indicated the applicant’s entitlement for allotment of 4.293 hectares of land.
• Grievance Redressal Authority was established on 30 March 2000 for project-affected families of the Sardar Sarovar Project resettled in Madhya Pradesh.
• Resettlement Officer reiterated communications regarding the applicant’s entitlement to agricultural land.
• Land Acquisition Officer determined the acquired land as 4.293 hectares with compensation at Rs 5,48,072.
• Court directed authorities to pay 1,358 project affected families Rs 15 lakhs each
• 681 families yet to be compensated to receive Rs 60 lakhs each as final settlement
• Some families duped, as per Justice S S Jha Commission report
• Order of the Court dated 8 February 2017 led to GRA passing order in March 2017 for final payment
• Applicant claimed entitlement for 4.293 hectares of land for compensation amounting to Rs 1,28,79,000
• High Court rejected writ petition stating applicant entitled to Rs 60 lakhs as per Court order
• Attorney General suggested land value pegged at Rs 45 lakhs for two hectares
• Court working towards equitable settlement for project affected families post Sardar Sarovar Project implementation
• Detailed factual narration of number of families entitled to compensation and their respective situations
• Division Bench of High Court dismissed writ petition on 29 November 2017

Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated

Issue

• The main issue for decision is whether the directions in the court order from 8 February 2017 can be clarified or modified.
• Specifically, the question is whether the applicant should receive compensation at the rate of Rs 30 lakhs per hectare for her 4.293 hectares of land.

Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis

Arguments

• Senior counsel argues that the compensation should be pegged at Rs 30 lakhs per hectare for persons like the applicant who are entitled to allotment of 4.293 hectares.
• Additional Solicitor General contends that the order of the Court was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and the compensation of Rs 60 lakhs per family was computed based on an average rate of Rs 30 lakhs per hectare.
• The final settlement package of Rs 60 lakhs per family has been determined.
• Once an order has been passed under Article 142, seeking a clarification or modification would amount to a substantive review of the order.
• Clarification or modification cannot be sought as it would essentially be a substantive review of the Court’s order.

Also Read: SC Upholds Bank’s Right to Forfeit Earnest Money in Failed E-Auction Due to Lack of “Exceptional Circumstances”

Analysis

• The order of the Court dated 8 February 2017 was meant to resolve the compensation controversy for families yet to receive full or partial compensation.
• The compensation package of Rs 60 lakhs per family was a final settlement directed by the Court under Article 142, unable to be broken down per hectare for calculation.
• The Award of the Tribunal was considered final and binding, leading to litigation with diverse pending applications.
• The order extended to resettlement and rehabilitation in Madhya Pradesh, compelling Gujarat and Maharashtra to conclude activities within three months.
• The Court directed an end to all pending litigation related to the Justice S S Jha Commission report recommendations.
• The Tribunal’s award in Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India was deemed final and binding by the Court.
• The order of the Court and directions under Article 142 cannot be further clarified or modified.
• The applicant had challenged GRA’s order before the High Court.
• There is no merit in the Miscellaneous Application based on the above reasons.

Decision

• Applications dismissed for non-prosecution.
• Applicants allowed to move Grievance Redressal Authority for expeditious disposal of representations/applications.
• If aggrieved by GRA’s order, applicants can challenge it in High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
• High Court rejected writ petition based on correct interpretation of Court’s order dated 8 February 2017.

Case Title: NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2022 INSC 995)

Case Number: MA-002279 / 2018

Click here to read/download original judgement