# 1 S.C.R. 535 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR v. BHERU SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 1 S.C.R. 535
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-02-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1211 of 2012
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1-s-c-r-535-state-of-madhya-pradesh-anr-v-bheru-singh-ors-28081
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

(2012] 1 S.C.R. 535
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
V.
BHERU SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1211 of 2012)
FEBRUARY 1, 2012
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA,
JJ.]
LAND ACQUISITION:
Acquisition of land for construction of Man Dam in State
of MP-Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R Policy)
framed by State Government - Claim for 2 hectares of land
A
B
c
for each major son of the landholder whose land had been
acquired - Held: Since the claim of entitlement of land is
D
based exclusively on a policy decision of the State
Government which has been incorporated in R & R Policy,
the entitlement would be determined strictly based on the
Policy - R & R Policy makes it clear that only such displaced
family whose more than 25% of land holding had been
acquired, would be entitled to compensation of 2 hectares
E
of land and this displacement of land would not merely be
notional - If each major son of the displaced family had not
been separately deprived of 25% of the land, then even as
per the R & R Policy, they were not entitled 2 hectares of land.
F
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
The oasteesldisplaced persons are weak and vulnerable
tribal population whose plea may get ignored or are not
properly addressed - In order to impart full justice to the
G
causes in terms of R & R Policy, it is desirable that the State
Government may constitute an appellate forum where the
aggrieved party may challenge the decision of GRA in case
there is any justifiable reason to do so - Public Interest
Litigation.
535
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A
REFERENCE TO LARGER BENCH:
Conflicting views in two judgements of Supreme Court -
Held: Though there appears to be conflict in two judgments
of the Supreme Court in regard to claim of share by each
8 major son of the family whose land has been acquired for
construction of the dam, the issue arises out of a policy
decision of the State Government and hence the same at the
most would be confined to R & R Policy as the issue is not
really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provisions
having a bearing in future on other simifar controversy, so as
C to refer it to a Constitution Bench; the Court refrains from
referring the question to a larger Bench.
In the process of construction of Man Dam on the
tributary of Narmada river in the State of Madhya
D Pradesh, lands of 448 families were acquired, out of
which 62 families opted for and were allotted land as per
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R policy).
The remaining 386 families accepted full cash
compensation in terms of R & R policy. Subsequently,
E the State Government took a decision as a welfare
measure to grant Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) to
the families/ oustees who had lost their land, in order to
enabie them to purchase land of their own choice to the
extent they had lost in the submergence on the condition
F that they would not claim any land from the Government.
Out of the 386 families who had accepted full cash
compensation, 337 families accepted the SRG. Disputes,
which arose while implementing the R & R Policy and
disbursement of SRG, were referred to the Grievance
Redressal Authority. Aggrieved by some of the orders
G passed by the GRA a writ petition in public interest was
filed before the High Court, which though held that there
was substantial compliance of R & R policy, but directed
the State Government to allot land to every son of the land
holder, who had become a major on or before the
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
537
SINGH & ORS.
notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act and was part of A
the larger family from whom land had been acquired.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The two decisions of this Court reported
in 2005 (4) SCC 32 (Narmada Bachao Ii ) and (2011) 7
B
SCC 639 (Narmada Bachao Ill) 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. However, the quest

## Text

_Characters 0–39,960 of 78,692. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39960 for what follows._

(2012] 1 S.C.R. 535
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
V.
BHERU SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1211 of 2012)
FEBRUARY 1, 2012
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA,
JJ.]
LAND ACQUISITION:
Acquisition of land for construction of Man Dam in State
of MP-Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R Policy)
framed by State Government - Claim for 2 hectares of land
A
B
c
for each major son of the landholder whose land had been
acquired - Held: Since the claim of entitlement of land is
D
based exclusively on a policy decision of the State
Government which has been incorporated in R & R Policy,
the entitlement would be determined strictly based on the
Policy - R & R Policy makes it clear that only such displaced
family whose more than 25% of land holding had been
acquired, would be entitled to compensation of 2 hectares
E
of land and this displacement of land would not merely be
notional - If each major son of the displaced family had not
been separately deprived of 25% of the land, then even as
per the R & R Policy, they were not entitled 2 hectares of land.
F
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
The oasteesldisplaced persons are weak and vulnerable
tribal population whose plea may get ignored or are not
properly addressed - In order to impart full justice to the
G
causes in terms of R & R Policy, it is desirable that the State
Government may constitute an appellate forum where the
aggrieved party may challenge the decision of GRA in case
there is any justifiable reason to do so - Public Interest
Litigation.
535
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A
REFERENCE TO LARGER BENCH:
Conflicting views in two judgements of Supreme Court -
Held: Though there appears to be conflict in two judgments
of the Supreme Court in regard to claim of share by each
8 major son of the family whose land has been acquired for
construction of the dam, the issue arises out of a policy
decision of the State Government and hence the same at the
most would be confined to R & R Policy as the issue is not
really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provisions
having a bearing in future on other simifar controversy, so as
C to refer it to a Constitution Bench; the Court refrains from
referring the question to a larger Bench.
In the process of construction of Man Dam on the
tributary of Narmada river in the State of Madhya
D Pradesh, lands of 448 families were acquired, out of
which 62 families opted for and were allotted land as per
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R policy).
The remaining 386 families accepted full cash
compensation in terms of R & R policy. Subsequently,
E the State Government took a decision as a welfare
measure to grant Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) to
the families/ oustees who had lost their land, in order to
enabie them to purchase land of their own choice to the
extent they had lost in the submergence on the condition
F that they would not claim any land from the Government.
Out of the 386 families who had accepted full cash
compensation, 337 families accepted the SRG. Disputes,
which arose while implementing the R & R Policy and
disbursement of SRG, were referred to the Grievance
Redressal Authority. Aggrieved by some of the orders
G passed by the GRA a writ petition in public interest was
filed before the High Court, which though held that there
was substantial compliance of R & R policy, but directed
the State Government to allot land to every son of the land
holder, who had become a major on or before the
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
537
SINGH & ORS.
notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act and was part of A
the larger family from whom land had been acquired.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The two decisions of this Court reported
in 2005 (4) SCC 32 (Narmada Bachao Ii ) and (2011) 7
B
SCC 639 (Narmada Bachao Ill) 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. However, the question as to
whether major sons would be included in the definition
C
of the displaced family or not is not really a legal issue
emerging from any statutory provision or ambiguity in the
Land Acquisition Act or any statute or an Act having a
bearing in future on other similar controversy so as to
refer it to a Constitution Bench of this Court.
Since the
D
entire issue 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., therefore, this Court refrains from referring
the question of entitlement of major son to a separate
E
holding, to a larger Bench. [para 41-42] (566-B-D; 567-AB]
Narmada Bachao Ando/an Vs. Union of India 2005 (2)
SCR 840 = 2005 (4) SCC 32 and State of M.P. Vs. Narmada
F
Bachao Ando/an & Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 639 - referred to.
1.2 When the claim or entitlement of land is based
exclusively on a policy decision of 'the Government of
M.P. which. has been incorporated in the R & R Policy,
the entitlement clearly would be based strictly on the
G
Policy formulated by the State Government. 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
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A land holding has been acquired would be entitled for
compensation of 2 hectares of land and this
displacement from land would not merely be notional.
Thus, even if the displaced family had several major sons,
allotment on account of acquisition to each major son
B does not arise in terms of the policy. 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. [Para 43C 44] [567-C-H; 568-A-B]
1.3 The entire right of the respondent/oustee in this
litigation flows from the R & R Policy 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
D displaced family constituted of several major sons, the
acquisition of 25% of land from each major son is
completely missing and, therefore, there is no reason as
to why the parties should be allowed to be bogged down
into further litigation for determination of the question as
E to whether all major sons of a displaceq family are
entitled to a separate unit of 2 hectares of land or only
the land holder of the displaced family would be entitled.
Therefore, the direction of the High Court in the
impugned judgment for allotment of land to each major
F son of the displaced family needs to be overturned. [Para
44] [568-A-D]
1.4 The High Court was not justified in entertaining
a writ petition by way of public interest litigation when it
G had already dealt with the question against which the
appeal also travelled up to this Court and was seized of
other writ petitions on the question. Besides, the High
Court in the impugned judgment itself has laid down
that there had been substantial compliance of the R & R
Policy of the Government of M.P. and yet it directed the
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
539
SINGH & ORS.
State Government to consider the question of al!otment A
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
B
of the matter also the direction of the High Court travels
beyond the scope of R & R Policy. The High Court had
no reason to expand the scope of R & R Policy by
directing the State Government to allot land to each of the
displaced family. [Para 45-46] [568-E-F; 569-C-E]
c
Joydeep Mukharjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
2011 (2) SCR 493 = (2011) 2 sec 706-relied on
1.5. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that
in the process of allotment, it is quite possible that some D
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 E
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
F
effect that they were deprived of 25% of acquired land
separately, 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. It,
therefore, needs to be clarified that this Court has not G
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 even if (2005) 4 sec 32 is to be fpllowed
that each major son of adisplaced family is entitled to a
separate unit of compensatory land, deprivation of 25%
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A of land from them is totally missing and if that is so, the
. respondents cannot be allowed to reopen this question
after four years of revision of R & R Policy. [Para 47]
[569-F-H; 570-A-E]
8
2.1. When a social activist takes up the cause for
the oustees, it is expected of him 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. The effort made by the
social activist taking up the cause for the rehabilitation
C of the oustees is laudable but in the process this Court
is under constraint as it cannot overlook the practical
fall out/consequences by allowing him to take up the
cause of the oustees oblivious of its consequence or
the administrative fall out since a cause cannot be
D 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. [Para 47] [570-D-G]
E
2.2. The oustees/displaced persons come from the
weak and vulnerable tribal population whose plea may
get ignored or are not properly addressed. Therefore, 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
F 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 should include a sitting or retired
District Judge and an administrative member under the
G 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 ha11e been properly distributed in the light of the
grievance raised by the displaced persons. This appellate
forum in effect would confine itself to the questions
H relating to compliance of the R & R Policy and
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
541
SINGH & ORS.
distribution of SRG in terms of the provisions A
enumerated therein. [Para 49] [571-E-H; 572-A-C]
2.3 The respondents-oustees would be at liberty to
approach the GRA or the Appellate Forum of GRA in case
they have been deprived of adequate compensation or 8
benefit in any manner which is not in consonance with
the R & R Policy. Liberty is further granted to the
respondents including ths social activist-respondent
No.3 to take up the matter before the State Government
for rectification or further amendment of the Policy in case
C
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 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
D
activity like the land acquisition where the affected parties
lost their home and cultivable land. [Para 50] [572-D-G]
Case Law Reference:
2005 (2) SCR 840
referred to
Para 3
E
(2011) 1 sec 639
referred to
Para 3
2011 (2) SCR 493
relied on
Para 45
CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1211"of
F
2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.8.2009 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 48 of 2004.
WITH
C.A. No. 1212 of 2012.
P.S. Patwalia, C.D. Singh, Sunny Choudhary, Aman Rahi,
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A Ajay Chauhan, Prashant Bhushan, Pyoli Swatija for the
appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. 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
c 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
0 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
E 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
F of Madhya Pradesh in the past which gave rise to the appeals
reaching even upto this Court and are reported in (2000) 10
sec 664, (2005) 4 sec 32 and (2011) 7 sec 639 which are
commonly referred to as Narmada Bachao 1st judgment,
Narmada Bachao llnd judgment and Narmada Bachao lllrd
G judgement.
4. But before we discuss the relevance and implications
of these judgements on the instant appeals, it would be relevant
to relate the historical background of the matter giving rise to
H a spate of litigations in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In
•
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
543
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
this context, it may be stated that a detailed Project Report ·A
(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 ReB
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 c
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
D
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.
1
E
5. However, since the displaced persons were st\11
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
F
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 frqm the Government. The benefit of SRG was also
extended to the farnilies/oustees who had lost their land in
submergence in the 'Man Project'. Out of the 386 families who
G
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
H
•
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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. 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
C 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.
D
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',
E the respondents 1 and 2 who are tribals living in villages KhediBalwadi 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
F 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
G land and all the orders of GRA have been complied with 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
H project affected families who demanded land for land has been
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
545
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
given land and with the help of SRG, the oustees have even
A
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
B
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 iro the year 1994 itself. Out of these 386 families,
C
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.
D
48/2004 wherein it was clarified that the cash compensation
was given to the land holders in 1995 with the direction to the
bani< 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
E
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
F
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
G
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 sec 639 set aside the judgment and
order dated 21.2.2008 passed in W.P.No.4457/2007 and held
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A that tbe 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:
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"(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,
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 199798 was sufficient to enable the displaced families to
purchase as much land was acl]uired from them under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 an.d 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 d~ 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 Gov!!rnment 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
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
547
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN_ SUDHA MISRA, J.]
paragraph 1 (b) of the Rehabilitation Policy does not
A
discriminate against women and is not violative of Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution, but women v1ho 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;
B
(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
C
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."
D
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
E
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
F
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.
G
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
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A 9 of the writ petition is under challenge at the instance of the
petitioner Bheru Singh and others against the aforesaid
directions.
12. The State of Madhya Pradesh in this appeal has
8 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
C regarding the allotment of land to adulVmajor 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.
D
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
E 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
F of State of Madhya Pradesh is whether the High Court has
erred in directing the petitioner to refund compensation payable
for trees 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
G 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
H provisions of the rehabilitation policy and there is no violation
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
549
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
of right of livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
A
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
B
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 sec 639 had set aside the judgment and order dated
21.2.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ
C
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
D
short) by 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
E
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
F
decid3d 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
G
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
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 1 S.C.R.
A 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 hereinbefore and the oustees8
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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F pointed out that the !Jetition 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 petition contains
a vague allegation of non-compliance of R & R Policy which
G is actually a roving enquiry.
It was submitted at this stage
H
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
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
551
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
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
A
B
of facts contained therein. It was submitted that in view of this c
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
D
!aches 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 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
E
belated stage which has an upsetting effect on settled society.
Such a belated petition was, therefore, liable to be rejected on
the ground of !aches and delay specially when this issue has
already been dealt with by the lllrd Narmada judgment which
is reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639.
F
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
G
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.
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 1 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 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.
c
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 &
D 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
E 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
f
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
G 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 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
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU
553
SINGH & ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
land was permitted to be retained as initial instalment towards
A
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
8
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 C
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 nc land was acquired from the adult son
as a separate land holder then how would the cost of the land D
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
E
(2000)10 SCC 664 commonly referred to as first Narmada
judgment wherein this Court (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
F
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 lllrd Narmada judgment
wherein this Court has examined the R & R Policy of the State G
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
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 1 S.C.R.
A exchequer. The relevant paragraph specifically states as
follows:
8
c
D
E
"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 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.
F
26. In order to add further weight to the submission, it was
submitted that in fact the Ill rd Narmada judgment (2011) 7
sec 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,
G 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.