# s s.-c.R. 443 NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR

- **Citation:** [2011] 6 S.C.R. 443
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-05-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2082 of 2011
- **Bench:** J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma, Dr. B.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-s-c-r-443-narmada-bachao-andolan-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-anr-27828
- **Pages:** 121

## Headnote

PLEADINGS:
Pleadings...,. Writ petition by Narmada Bachao Ando/an,
as public interest litigation - Held: A party has to plead its
case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate
B
c
the averrnents made in the petition and in case the pleadings
D
are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain
the pleas - It cannot be said that the rules of procedural law
do not apply in PIL - In the instant case, there were no
pleadings before the High Court on the basis of which the writ
petition could be entertained/decided - Thus, it was liable to
E
be rejected at the threshold for the reason that the writ petition
suffered for want of proper pleadings and material to
substantiate the avermentslallegations contained therein -
Besides, there was no explanation as to under what
circumstances the High Court had been approached at such
F
belated stage -
In fact for redressal of any grievance
regarding implementation of the Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Policy, the oustees ought to have approached
the Grievance Redressal Authority - High Court ought not to
have examined any issue other than relating to rehabilitation
i.e. implementation of the R & R Policy - Constitution of India,
G
1950- Article 226 - Writ petition - Delay I Laches - Remedy
- Alternate remedy - Public Interest Litigation.
443
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Articles 21 and 14 -
Hydro Electric Projects -
Omkareshwar Dam in the basin of river Narmada - Land
acquisition and rehabilitation of oustees - Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy framed by state of Madhya Pradesh -
B Providing for allotment of land and other benefits to ousteesPolicy amended on 30. 7. 2003 providing that agricultural land
would be offered to oustees 'as far as possible' - Expressions
'as far as possible' and 'rehabilitation' - Connotation of- Held:
The R & R Policy or amendment thereto in 2003, has not
C been under challenge. Relief not sought by the patty cannot
be granted by the Court -
However, in terms of the
amendment dated 3. 7.2003, it is desirable for the authority
concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who
had been living and carrying on business or other activity on
D the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to •·
purchase and comply with the rf-quirements be given a piece
of land on the terms settled with due regard to the price at
which land has been acquired from them - However, the State
Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate
E accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority
concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of
providing alternative land considering the facts and
circumstances of each case - In cerlain cases, the oustees
are entitled to rehabilitation - Rehabilitation is meant only
F for those persons who have been rendered destitute because
of a loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land
acquisition - The definition of "displaced family" cannot be
read in isolation, rather it requires to be considered taking into
account the eligibility criteria for allotment of land in Clause
(5) of the R & R Policy - To that extent, the judgment of the
G High Courl is liable to be set aside - The direction given by
the High Courl in paragraph 64 (i) of the judgment, is modified
to the extent that the displaced families who have not
withdrawn SRG benefits/ compensation voluntarily and submit
applications for allotment of land before the Authority
H concerned, shall be entitled to the allotment of agricultural
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
445
MADHYA PRADESH
land "as far as possible" in terms of the R & R Policy, and for A
that purpose, the authorities must make some government or
private land available for allotment to such oustees if they opt
for such land and agree to ensure compliance with other terms
and conditions stipulated therein - Maxims - "lex non cogit
ad impossibilia" , "impossibilium nu/la obligatio est",
8
"impotentia excusat legem

## Text

_Characters 0–39,899 of 227,531. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39899 for what follows._

(20111 s s.-c.R. 443
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2082 of 2011)
MAY 11, 2011
[J.M. PANCHAL, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.]
PLEADINGS:
Pleadings...,. Writ petition by Narmada Bachao Ando/an,
as public interest litigation - Held: A party has to plead its
case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate
B
c
the averrnents made in the petition and in case the pleadings
D
are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain
the pleas - It cannot be said that the rules of procedural law
do not apply in PIL - In the instant case, there were no
pleadings before the High Court on the basis of which the writ
petition could be entertained/decided - Thus, it was liable to
E
be rejected at the threshold for the reason that the writ petition
suffered for want of proper pleadings and material to
substantiate the avermentslallegations contained therein -
Besides, there was no explanation as to under what
circumstances the High Court had been approached at such
F
belated stage -
In fact for redressal of any grievance
regarding implementation of the Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Policy, the oustees ought to have approached
the Grievance Redressal Authority - High Court ought not to
have examined any issue other than relating to rehabilitation
i.e. implementation of the R & R Policy - Constitution of India,
G
1950- Article 226 - Writ petition - Delay I Laches - Remedy
- Alternate remedy - Public Interest Litigation.
443
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Articles 21 and 14 -
Hydro Electric Projects -
Omkareshwar Dam in the basin of river Narmada - Land
acquisition and rehabilitation of oustees - Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy framed by state of Madhya Pradesh -
B Providing for allotment of land and other benefits to ousteesPolicy amended on 30. 7. 2003 providing that agricultural land
would be offered to oustees 'as far as possible' - Expressions
'as far as possible' and 'rehabilitation' - Connotation of- Held:
The R & R Policy or amendment thereto in 2003, has not
C been under challenge. Relief not sought by the patty cannot
be granted by the Court -
However, in terms of the
amendment dated 3. 7.2003, it is desirable for the authority
concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who
had been living and carrying on business or other activity on
D the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to •·
purchase and comply with the rf-quirements be given a piece
of land on the terms settled with due regard to the price at
which land has been acquired from them - However, the State
Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate
E accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority
concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of
providing alternative land considering the facts and
circumstances of each case - In cerlain cases, the oustees
are entitled to rehabilitation - Rehabilitation is meant only
F for those persons who have been rendered destitute because
of a loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land
acquisition - The definition of "displaced family" cannot be
read in isolation, rather it requires to be considered taking into
account the eligibility criteria for allotment of land in Clause
(5) of the R & R Policy - To that extent, the judgment of the
G High Courl is liable to be set aside - The direction given by
the High Courl in paragraph 64 (i) of the judgment, is modified
to the extent that the displaced families who have not
withdrawn SRG benefits/ compensation voluntarily and submit
applications for allotment of land before the Authority
H concerned, shall be entitled to the allotment of agricultural
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
445
MADHYA PRADESH
land "as far as possible" in terms of the R & R Policy, and for A
that purpose, the authorities must make some government or
private land available for allotment to such oustees if they opt
for such land and agree to ensure compliance with other terms
and conditions stipulated therein - Maxims - "lex non cogit
ad impossibilia" , "impossibilium nu/la obligatio est",
8
"impotentia excusat legem" and "nemo tenetur ad
impossibilia".
Articles 300-A and 21 -
Compensation for property
acquired and rehabilitation -
c
Concepts of - Explained.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE:
Rehabilitation and resettlement - Oustees of Omkarshwar
Dam - HELD: As regards the issue of land for land, it has to
D
be decided taking into consideration the totality of the
circumstances - These cases are to be decided giving strict
adherence to the R & R Policy, as amended on 3. 7. 2003,
further considering that special care is to be taken where
persons are oppressed and uprooted so that they are better E
off - Mere payment of compensation to the oustees may not
be enough - In case the oustee is not able to purchase the
land just after getting the compensation, he may not be able
to have the land at all - In the process of development, the
State cannot be permitted to displace tribal people, a F
vulnerable section of our society, suffering from poverty and
ignorance, without taking appropriate remedial measures of
rehabilitation - In regard to the amended provisions of the R
& R Policy, the phrase "as far as possible" would come into
play, in case an attempt is made to acquire/purchase lands
G
and then to make allotment of land to oustees.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:
Rights and obligations, and locus of public interest litigant
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A - Hydro-electric projects - Omkareshwar Dam in the basin
of river Narmada - Writ petition under public interest litigation
filed by Narmada Bachao Ando/an stating that the tenure
holders had already been dispossessed and land vested in
the State - Held: The 'rights' of the public interest litigant in a
8 PIL are always subordinate to the 'interests' of those for whose
benefit the action is brought - The status of dominus litis
could not be conferred unreflectively or for the asking, on a
PIL petitioner as that would render the proceedings
·vulnerable to and susceptible of a new dimension which
might, in conceivable cases be used by persons for personal
C ends resulting in prejudice to the public weal - The courts
expect a public interest litigant to discharge high standards
of responsibility - Negligent use or use for oblique motives
is extraneous to the PIL process - A person seeking relief in
public interest should approach the court of Equity, not only
D with clean hands but also with a clean mind, clean heart and
clean objective - A petition containing misleading and
inaccurate statement(s), if filed, to achieve an ulterior
purpose, amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court -
Further, a false statement made in the court or in the
E pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a
favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends
to impede the administration of justice - In the instant case,
the NBA has not acted with a sense of responsibility and so
far succeeded in securing favourable orders by misleading
F the court - Such conduct cannot be approved - However, in
a P/L, the Court has to strike a balance between the interests
of the parties - The court has to take into consideration the
pitiable condition of oustees, their poverty, inarticulateness,
illiteracy, extent of backwardness, unawareness also - It is
G desirable that in future the court must view any presentation
by the NBA with caution and care, insisting on proper
pleadings, disclosure of full facts truly and fa:rly and in case
it has any doubt, refuse to entertain the NBA - However,
considering the interests of the oustees, it may be desirable
H
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
447
MADHYA PRADESH
that the court may appoint Amicus Curiae to present their A
cause, if such a contingency arises - 'Jure naturae aequum
est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri
locupletiorem', Juri ex injuria non oritur' and 'suppressio veri
and suggestio falsi'.
PRECEDENT:
8
Reliance upon a judgment- Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy for oustees of Omkareshwar Dam - Term
'family'- Connotation of - Held: Court should not place
reliance upon a judgment without discussing how the factual C
situation fits in with a fact-situation of the decision on which
reliance is placed, as it has to be ascertained by analysing
all the material facts and the issues involved in the case and
argued on both sides - A judgment may not be followed in a
given case if it has some distinguishing features - A little
D
difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of
difference to the precedential value of a decision -
The
NWDT Award did not provide for allotment of agricultural land
to the major sons of such oustees - The Narmada Bachao
Ando/an-/ has been decided with presumption that such a
E 1
right had been conferred upon major sons by the NWDT
Award and Narmada Bachao Ando/an-II has been decided
following the said judgment and interpreting the definition of
"family" contained in the R & R Policy - When the two earlier
cases were being considered by the Court, it had not been
brought to its notice that the NWDT Award did not provide for
such an entitlement - The courts are not to perpetuate an
illegality, rather it is the duty of the courts to rectify mistakes
F
- In view of the principles of 'per incuriam', the "quotable in
law" is avoided and ignored if it is rendered in ignorance of a
G
Statute or other binding authority - Direction given by the
High Court to allot agricultural land to major sons of the
oustees in Paragraph 64 (iii) of the impugned judgment is set
aside - Principle of 'per inquiriam'- Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 14.
H
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
Hydroelectric Project -
Omkareshwar Dam -
Rehabilitation of oustees - Landless labourers - Held: As the
landless labourers never had any land, they are not entitled
8 to any compensation under the Act, thus, the question of
allotment of land to them would not arise - The R & R Policy
itself provides that such persons are entitled to get the
specified amount of Rs.49,3001- to buy productive
employment creating assets etc., and such money can also
C be used for acquiring land.
s. 48 - Denotification of acquisition - Land in respect of
which acquisition proceedings initiated not likely to submerge
- Government abandoning the acquisition proceedings - The
stand of the NBA was that tenure-holders were not in
D possession - On the direction of Supreme Court, the District
Judge reported that tenure holders were in actual possession
of the land - Expression 'taking possession of the land' -
Explained - Law on the issue summarised - HELD: The State
is entitled to abandon the land acquisition proceedings in
E exercise of its power uls 48 of the Act - However, it shall not
apply to 167 dwelling units on the said land - Such persons
whose dwelling units are acquired shall be entitled for the
benefit of R & R Policy to the extent provided therein.
F
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
Government policy - Judicial review of, through public
interest litigation- Held: A public policy cannot be challenged
through PIL where the State Government is competent to
frame the policy - The wisdom and advisability of the policies
G are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the
policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions
or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power - In the instant
case, it was not desirable for the High Court to make any
comment on the competence of the State of amend the
H policy.
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:
449
Interpretation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy
framed by Government- Held: The Court while interpreting
the provisions of a Statute, can neither add nor subtract a word
A
- The Court has to interpret a provision giving it a construction
8
agreeable to reason and justice to all parties concerned,
avoiding
injustice,
irrationality
and
mischievous
consequences - In the instant case, the directions of the High
Court regarding land-for-land would lead to grave inequity, and
thereby likely to cause undue enrichment of some categories C
of oustees - The High Court, therefore, fell into an error by
proceeding to assume that a major son would be treated to
be a separate family for the purpose of allotment of land also
- Thus, the policy must be interpreted to the effect that the
major sons of oustees will be entitled to all the benefits under
the R & R Policy, except a/location of agricultural land -
D
Maxim: "a verbis legis non est recedendum".
On construction of Omkareshwar Dam in the basin
of river Narmada, 30 villages in State of Madhya Pradesh
were expected to submerge at the full reservoir level of E
1
196.6 meter. The State Government framed a
rehabilitation and resettlement policy (R & R Policy) for
the oustees of all the Narmada Projects. The policy
provided for allotment of a minimum of two hectares of
agricultural land; irrigational facilities at government cost;
F
grant-in-aid for small and marginal farmers and SC/ST
families, and to meet the entire cost of the allotted land.
The policy was amended from time to time and by
amendment dated 3.7.2003 it was provided that
agricultural land would be offered to the oustees "as far G
as possible" and not to those who would make
application in writing to receive compensation for their
acquired land. The displaced persons were allegedly not
offered the land under the R & R Policy, as amended on
3. 7.2003, rather compensation for their land was H
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A deposited in their accounts. When the decision was taken
to raise the height of the dam, Narmada Bachao Andolan
(NBA), flied a writ petition before the High Court seeking
a number of reliefs. The High Court issued a large
number of directions as interim measures including the
B direction for allotment of land in lieu of the land acquired
and to treat the major sons of the family as independent
families for the purpose of allotment of agricultural land.
State of Madhya Pradesh and the Narmada Hydro
C Electric Development Corporation filed CA Nos. 2115 and
2116 of 2011 contending that the High Court ought not
to have entertained the writ petition as it did not have
material facts/particulars disclosing any cause of action
to the writ petitioners even in the PIL; that not a single
order passed by any statutory authority had been
D challenged and the writ petition was filed after inordinate
delay without furnishing any explanation for the same;
that Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) had been
constituted to consider grievances of the oustees and not
a single oustee approached the GRA before filing of the
E writ petition; that the High Court erred in treating the
major son of such an oustee as a separate family for the
purpose of allotment of agricultural land, though he did
not have any independent right to claim compensation
for the land acquired; that land for allotment to such
F oustees was not available and the State authorities could
not be asked to do an impossible task.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and the Narmada
Hydro Development Corporation also filed C.A. Nos.
G 2083-2012 of 2011 challenging the order of the High
Court whereby it allowed the applications of the NBA and
directed the State to rehabilitate the oustees so far as the
land measuring 284.03 hectares in the five villages,
namely, Dharadi, Nayapura, Guwadi, Kothmir,
H Narsinghpura was concerned and not to withdraw the
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
451
MADHYA PRADESH
acquisition proceedings in respect of the. said area.
A
C.A. No. 2082 of 2011 was filed by the writ petitioner
NBA claiming allotment of agricultural land to landless
oustees and that the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal
-
award dated 12.12. 1979 (NWDT award) be made 8
applicable to the project of the Omkareshwar Dam and
that the oustees of five villages, which were submerged,
were entitled to allotment of land in lieu of land acquired
inspite of the fact that the SRG had already been granted
to them.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:
C.A. Nos. 2015-2016 of 2011
1.1. It is a settl~d proposition of law that a party has
to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence
to substantiate the averments made in the petition and
ci
D
in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is
under no obligation to entertain the pleas. It cannot be
E
said that the rules of procedural law do not apply in PIL.
[Para 7 and 1 OJ [481-D; 482-G-H]
I
Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1988(2)
Suppl. SCR 1050=AIR 1988 SC 2181; Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
F
& Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 1988 (2) SCR 339=AIR 1998
SC 1608; Mis Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh,
2001 (3) SCR 124 =AIR 2001 SC 1684; Rajasthan Pradesh
V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2010 (1)
SCR 252 =AIR 2010 SC 2221; Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by
L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter-College & Ors., 1987 (2) SCR
G
805 =AIR 1987 SC 1242; Kalyan Singh Chauhan v. C.P.
Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127; Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendera v. State of U.P., 1988 Suppl.; SCR 690 =AIR 1988
SC 2187; A. Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu &
Anr., 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 404 =(1994) 6 SCC 51; Ashok H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A Kumar Pandey it. State of West Bengal, AIR 2004 SC 280;
Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2003 (5) Suppl.
SCR 716 =(2005) 13 SCC 452; and A. Abdul Farook v.
Municipal Council. Perambalur, 2009 (11) SCR 727 =(2009)
15 sec 351 - relied on.
B
1.2. In the instant case, in the writ petition, an
impression had been given that some drastic steps would
be taken by the authorities which would cause great
hardship to a large number of persons and urgent
measures were required to be taken by the Court in order
C to mitigate the sufferings of the people. However, the writ
petition did not disclose the factum of how many persons
had already vacated their houses and handed over the
possession of their land. There was no material before
the High Court to adjudicate upon the issues involved.
D There were no pleadings before the High Court on the
basis of which the writ petition could be entertained/
decided. Thus, it was liable to be rejected at the threshold
for the reason that the writ petition suffered for want of
proper pleadings and material !o substantiate the
E averments/allegations contained therein. Even in the case
of a PIL, such a course could not be available to the writ
petitioners. [Para 12- 13) (483-E-G; 484-F]
1.3. The construction of the dam started in October
F 2002 and was completed in October 2006. No objection
had ever been raised by NBA at any stage. The Narmada
Development Authority by order dated 28.3.2007 gave
permission to National Hydraulic Development
Corporation to raise the water level of the dam to 189
G meters upon showing that rehabilitation of oustees of 5
villages adversely affected at 189 meters, had already
been completed. The writ petition was filed praying for
restraining the appellants from closing the sluice gates
of the dam contending that resettlement and rehabilitation
H was not complete. There was no explanation as to under
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
453
MADHYA PRADESH
what circumstances the High Court had been
A
approached at such belated stage. In fact, for redressal
of any grievance regarding implementation of the R & R
Policy, the oustees ought to have approached the GRA.
There is nothing on record to show how many oustees
remained unsatisfied/aggrieved of the orders passed by
B
GRA till the fmng of the writ petition. Thus, the High Court
ought not to have examined any issue other than relating
to rehabilitation i.e. implementation of the R & R Policy.
[para 14, 16 and 17] [484-G-H; 485-A-B; 486-0-E]
Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India & Ors.,
C
2000(4) Suppl. SCR 94 = (2000) 10 SCC 664; State of
Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 492 =(1995)
4 SCC 683; and Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India
& Ors., 2005 (2) SCR 840 =(2005) 4 SCC 32 -referred to.
1.4. The R & R Policy or amendment thereto in 2003,
has not been under challenge. Relief not sought by the
party cannot be granted by the Court. It was not desirable
D
for the High Court to make any comment on the
competence of the State to amend the policy and the
E
finding so recorded in Para 38 of the judgment cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law, and thus is set aside. [Para
86] [524-8-C]
1.5. In view of the fact that neither the writ petitioner
F
asked the High ·court to quash the amendment dated
3.7.2003, nor has the High Court suo motu quashed it, nor
has the writ petitioner filed Special Leave Petition raising
the said point, it is not permissible for this Court to deal
with the issue. [Para 23] [488-C]
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr.,
1983(1) SCR 8=AIR 1982 SC 1249; Transmission
Corporation of A.P. Ltd & Ors. v. P. Surya Bhagavan, AIR
2003 SC 2182; and Mount Carmel School Society v. ODA,
2007 (13) SCR 876 = (2008) 2 SCC 141 - referred to.
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A
2.1. In terms of the amendment dated 3. 7 .2003, it is
desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as
far as practicable persons who had been living and
carrying on business or other activity on the land
acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to purchase
B and comply with any requirement of the authority or the
local body, be given a piece of land on the terms settled
with due regard to the price at which land has been
acquired from them. However, the State Government
cannot
be
compelled
to
provide
alternate
C accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority
concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of
providing alternative land considering the facts and
circumstances of each case. In certain cases, the oustees
are entitled to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is meant only
0 for those persons who have been rendered destitute
because of a loss of residence or livelihood as a
consequence of land acquisition. The authorities must
explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of
employment, housing, investment opportunities, and
identification of alternative lands. For people whose lives
E and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the
economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be
traumatic. [Para 23 & 24] [488-C-H; 489-A-B]
State of UP. v. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors., AIR 1986 SC
F 2025; Narpat Singh etc. etc. v. Jaipur Development Authority
& Anr., 2002 (3) SCR 365=AIR 2002 SC 2036; Special Land
Acquisition Officer, UK. Project v. Mahaboob & Anr., 2009
(2) SCR 881 =(2009) 14 SCC 54; Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.
& Anr. v. Mathias Oram & Ors., 2010 (8) SCR 750 =JT (2010)
G 7 SC 352; and Brij Mohan & Ors. v. Haryana Urban
Development Authority & Anr., (2011) 2 SCC 29; Chameli
Singh & Ors. v. State of UP. & Anr., 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR
827 =AIR 1996 SC 1051; and Samatha v. State of A.P. &
.Ors., 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 305 = AIR 1997 SC 3297;
H Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram & Ors., 2007 (2) SCR 980
-----·
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
455
MADHYA PRADESH
=(2007) 10 SCC 448; and Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State of A
Punjab & Ors. 2010 (12) SCR 163 = (2010) 10 SC 43 - relied
on.
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat &
Anr., 1994(1) Suppl. SCR 807 =AIR 1995 SC 142 - referred
B
to
2.2. From the judgments of this Court, it is evident
that acquisition of land does not violate. any
constitutional/fundamental right of the displaced
persons. However, they are entitled to resettlement and
C
rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of
the concerned project. [Para 29] [4~1-G-H]
State of Kera/a & Anr. v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties,
Kera/a State Unit & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 46 - relied on.
D
2.3. It is a settled legal proposition that Government
has the power and competence to change the policy on
the basis of ground realities. A public policy cannot be
challenged through PIL where the State Government is
competent to frame the policy and there is no need for
E
anyone to raise any grievance even i.f the policy is
changed. The public policy can only be challenged where
it offends some constitutional or stat1,1tory provisions. The
court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the
Government merely because it feels that another decision
F
would have been fairer or more scientific or logical or
wiser . .The wisdom and advisability of the policies are
ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the·
policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional
provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power.
G
[Para 34-35] [496-D-G]
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga etc. etc.
AIR 1998 SC 1703; Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh & Ors. v.
State of U.P. & Ors., 2007(5) SCR 1960 =(2007) 6 SCC 44;
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 6 S.C.R.
A Villianur lyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India & Ors.,
2009 (9) SCR 225 = (2009) 7 sec 561 - relied on.
2.4. In the instant case, the phrase 'as far as possible'
inserted by the amendment dated 3.7.2003 provides for
8 flexibility, clothing the authority concerned with powers
to meet special situations where the normal process of
resolution cannot flow smoothly. The phrase can be
interpreted as not being prohibitory in nature. The phrase
simply means that the principles are to be observed
unless it is not possible to follow the same in the
C particular circumstances of a case. The words rather,
connote a discretion vested in the prescribed authority.
It is thus discretion and not compulsion. Once the
authority exercises its discretion, the court should not
interfere with the discretion/decision unless it is found to
D be palpably arbitrary. The court has to consider and
understand the scope of application of the doctrines of
"lex non cogit ad impossibi/ia" (the law does not compel
a man to do what he cannot possibly perform);
"impossibilium nu/la obligatio esf' (the law does not
E expect a party to do the impossible); and impotentia
excusat /egem in the qualified sense that there is a
necessary or invincible disability to perform the
mandatory part of the law or to forbear the prohibitory.
These maxims are akin to the maxim of Roman Law nemo
F tenetur ad impossibilia (no one is bound to do an
impossibility) which is derived from common sense and
natural equity. [Para 36-38) (497-A-G]
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., 2005 (1) SCR
G 73 = AIR 2005 SC 514; and High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan v. Veena Verma & Anr., 2009 (1) SCR 795 = AIR
2009 SC 2938; Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad &
Ors., 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 754 =AIR 1999 SC 3558; Hira
Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., 2004(1) Suppl.
H SCR 65 =AIR 2004 SC 3648; and Haryana Urban
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
457
MADHYA PRADESH
Development Authority & Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr.,
A
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 282 =AIR 2005 SC 1491; Gramin Sewa
Sanstha v. State of M.P. & Ors., 1986 Supp SCC 578referred to.
·
2.5. As regards the land for land, the issue has to be
8
decided taking into consideration the totality of the
circumstances. These cases are to be decided giving
strict adherence to the R & R Policy, as amended on
3.7.2003, further considering that special care is to be
taken where persons are oppressed and uprooted so that
they are better off. Mere payment of compensation to the
C
oustees may not be enough. In case the· oustee is not
able to purchase the land just after getting the
compensation, he may not be able to have the land at all.
[Para 43-44] [499-F-H; 500-A, DJ
D
K. Krishna Reddy & Ors. v. Sp/. Dy. Collector, Land
Acqn. Unit II, LMD Karimnagar, 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR
853=AIR 1988 SC 2123; Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v.
Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr. 1995(2) SCR 260 = (1995)
Suppl. 2 SCC 549; and N.D. Jayal & Anr. v. Union of India
E
& Ors., 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 152 =AIR 2004 SC 867; Ezra
v. Secretary of State for India, (1905) 32 Ind App 93; and
Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr.,
1986 (1) SCR 603 =AIR 1986 SC 1164 - referred to.
2.6. In the process of development, the State cannot
F
be permitted to displace tribal people, a vulnerable
section of our society, suffering from poverty and
ignorance, without taking appropriate remedial measures
of rehabilitation. The record of the case reveals that about
5~ 0/o of the oustees involved in these cases are members
G
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Land had
never been offered to any of these oustees. The amount
of compensation as determined under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 had been deposited in their bank
accounts. No attempt had ever been made by the State
H
'
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A to either acquire or purchase land by agreement/
negotiation for resettlement of the oustees. Only 11 % of
the oustees could purchase the land of their own without
any assistance from the State authorities. [Para 47-48]
[501-G-H; 502-A-B; 503-B-C]
B
2.7. In regard to the amended provisions of the R &
R Policy, the phrase "as far as possible" would come into
play, in case an attempt is made to acquire/purchase
lands and then to make allotment of land to oustees. The
other added term i.e. giving the option to oustees to make
C application for acceptance of compensation and not
c.laiming land for land acquired, remained inapplicable, as
it is alleged that not a single oustee made such an
application. None of the obligations on the part of the
authorities as clearly stipulated by the R & R Policy had
D been fulfilled . .The Adhiniyam 1985 had not been made
applicable in respect of the Omkareshwar Dam Project
taking into account the past experience in other projects.
The State authorities, ought to have assisted the oustees
in purchasing the land of their choice from other
E agriculturists and met the difference of cost, if any, over
and above the amount of compensation and the cost of
land so purchased. While determining such issues, the
State authorities could take into consideration the fact
that the land should be not less than of the same quality
F and nature which the oustees were originally having with
them. This exercise could have been done "pari pasu"
which means "equably" or "ratably" to the construction
of the Dam and could have been completed much In
advance of completion of the Dam to the Full Water Level.
G [Para 48] [502-C-H; 503-A]
H
2.8. It has been stated that the State Government
devised a scheme whereby the PAF is given substantial
additional amount over and above the compensation for
his land in order to enable him to purchase arable and
I
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
459
MADHYA PRADESH
irrigable land at the location of his choice. This scheme
A
has come to be known as SRG or Special Rehabilitation
Package (SRP). The offer of SRG is over and above the
Rehabilitation Policy. The relief granted by the appellants
to the oustees as SRG is much more than the amount of
compensation or amount entitled in R & R Policy as
B
amended on 3.7.2003. In fact, to certain extent, it is in
consonance with the provisions contained in Clause (5.4)
of R & R Policy, wherein the State is un/ier an obligation
to meet the gap of amount between the amount of
compensation and the value of the land purchased by the c
oustees. It has also been stated that all the oustees have
voluntarily accepted SRG and withdrawn the amount and
they stand fully satisfied. However, if an oustee feels
aggrieved of what he has received, he may approach the
GRA, and against the decision of GRA any aggrieved
D
party may approach the High Court. [para 50-53] [504-CD, G; 506-A-E]
3.1. The Court should not place reliance upon a
judgment without discussing how the factual situation fits·
in with a fact-situation of the decision on which reliance
E
is placed, as it ha.s to be ascertained by analysing all the
material facts and the issues involved in the case and
argued on both sides. A judgment may not be followed
in a given case if it has some distinguishing features. A
little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot
F
of difference to the precedential value of a decision. [Para
59] [508-H; 509-A-B]
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gumam Kaur, State of
· Kamataka & Ors. v. Gowramma & Ors., 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR
G
929 =AIR 2008 SC 863; and State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Dharam Singh & Ors. 2009 (1) SCR 979 - relied on.
3.2. Admittedly, the NWDT Award did not provide for
allotment of agricultural land to the major sons of such
oustees. Th~ States of Gujarat and Maharashtra had
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 6 S.C.R.
A given concessions/relief over and above the said Award.
Thus, the Narmada Bachao Andolan-1 has been decided
with presumption that such a right had been conferred
upon major sons by the NWDT Award and Narmada
Bachao Andolan-11 has been decided following the said
B judgment and interpreting the definition of "family"
contained in the R & R Policy. When the two earlier cases
were being considered by the Court, it had not been
brought to its notice that the NWDT Award did not
provide for such an entitlement. The courts are not to
c perpetuate an illegality, rather it is the duty of the courts
to rectify mistakes. In view of the principles of 'per
incuriam', the "quotable in law" is avoided and ignored
if it is rendered in ignorance of a Statute or other binding
authority. [para 60,62 and 63] (510-E-F; 511-A; 509-E-F]
D
India Cement Ltd. etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu etc.
etc., 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 692 =AIR 1990 SC 85, State of
West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors., 2004(1) SOR
564 = (2004) 10 SCC 201 Mam/eshwar Prasad & Anr. v.
Kanhaiya Lal (D) by Lrs., 1975 (3) S~R 834 =AIR 1975 SC
E 907; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 =
AIR 1988 SC 1531; State of UP. & Anr. v. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd. & Anr., 1991 (3) SCR 64 = (1991) 4 SCC 139;
and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors., 2010 (15) SCR 201 = (2011) 1 SCC 694; Hotel Balaji
F
& Ors. etc. etc. v. State of A.P. & Ors. etc. etc., 1992(2) Suppl.
SCR 182 =AIR 1993 SC 1048; Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of
M.P. & Anr., 2004(3) Suppl. SCR 1006 = (2004) 7 SCC 558;
and Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI, 2006(3)
Suppl. SCR 48 =AIR 2006 SC 2449, Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy.,
G Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, 1995 (3) SCR 450 =
(1995) 3 sec 619 - referred to.
3.3. Discrimination means an unjust, an unfair action
in favour of one and against another. It involves an
element of intentional and purposeful differentiation and
H
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
461
MADHYA PRADESH
further an element of unfavourable bias; an unfair A
·classification. Discrimination under Article 14 of the
Constitution must be conscious and not accidental
discrimination that arises from oversight which the State
is ready to rectify. [para 67] [512-C-D]
Madhu Kishwar & Ors.v. State ofBihar & Ors., 1996 (1)
Suppl. SCR 442 =AIR 1996 SC 1864; Kathi Raning Rawat
v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435 =AIR 1952 SC 123;
and Mis. Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Punjab
B
& Anr., 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 =AIR 1990 SC 820,
Vishundas Hundumal & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & C
Ors., 1981 (3) SCR 234 =AIR 1981 SC 1636; and Eskayef
Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990(1) Suppl. SCR 442
=(1990) 4 sec 680 - referred to
3.4. The High Court while passing the order had given
D
a much wider interpretation to the R & R Policy making
reference to the terms as "bigger family" and the "large
land owning family". The Court while interpreting the
provisions of a Statute, can neither add nor subtract a
word. The legal maxim "a verbis legis non est E
recedendum" means from the words of law, there must
be no departure. [para 69] [512-G; 513-A-B]
S.P. Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC
149; P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries & Ors., AIR 1990 SC
F
933; and Commissioner of Income Tax, Kera/a v. Tara
Agencies, (2007) 6 SCC 429 - relied on
3.5. The Court has to interpret a provision giving it a
construction agreeable to reason and justice to all
parties concerned, avoiding injustice, irrationality and
G
mischievous consequences. The interpretation so made
must not produce unworkable and impracticable results
or cause unnecessary hardship, serious inconvenience
or anomaly. The court also has to keep in mind the object
of the legislation. [para 79] [516-F-G]
H
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 6 S.C.R.
A
Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, AIR
1994 SC 1775; Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala
& Anr. 2008 916) SCR 340 =(2009) 1 SCC 540; and Sonic
Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009(15) SCR 265
= (2010) 1 SCC 135; Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and
s Unani Medicine v. State of Bihar, 2007 (11) SCR 824 = AIR
2008 SC 595; and Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota
Shaikh v. Union of India, 2008 (14) SCR 889 = (2009) 2 SCC
1; Union of India v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., 2008 (8) SCR
315 = AIR 2008 SC 2286; Narashimaha Murthy v.
C Susheelabai, 1996(1) Suppl. SCR 414 =AIR 1996 SC 1826;
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate, 1958 SCR 1156 =AIR 1958 SC 353,
Sheikh Gu/fan v. Sanat Kumar Ganguli, 1965 SCR 364 =AIR
1965 SC 1839 - referred to.
D
3.6. In the instant case, the directions of the High
Court regarding land-for-land would lead to grave
inequity, and thereby likely to cause undue enrichment
of some categories of oustees: a.) Sons of land owning
class get better rights than their fathers; b) Sons of land
E owning class get better rights than those of land less
class; c) even though everybody loses same measure of
land, some are not entitled to any land while for some it
becomes an unimaginable bounty or proves to be
bonanza. [para 81] [519-A-C]
F
3.7. Compensation in the present context has to be
understood in relation to right to property. The right of
the oustee is protected only to a limited extent as
enunciated in Article 300-A of the Constitution. The tenure
G holder is deprived of the property only to the extent of
land actually owned and possessed by him. This Is,
therefore, limited to the physical area of the property and
this area cannot get expanded or reduced by any fictional
definition of the word "family" when it comes to awarding
H compensation. Compensation is Awarded by authority of
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OF
463
MADHYA PRADESH
law under Article 300-A read with the relevant statutory law A
of'eompensatioh under any law made by the legislature
and for the time being in force, only for the area acquired.
RehabilitatiOn on the other hand, is restoration of the
status of something lost, displaced or even otherwise a
grant to secure a dignified mode of life to a person who B
has nothing to sustain himself. This concept, as against
compensation and property under Article 300-A, brings
within its fold the presence of the elements of Article 21
of the Constitution. Those who have been rendered
destitute, have to be assured a permanent source of basic C
livelihood to sustain themselves. This becomes necessary
for the State when it relates to the rehabilitation of the
already depressed classes like Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and marginal farmers in order to meet
the.requirements of social justice. [Para 83) [520-F-H; 521D
A.-0.l
3.8. The benefit given to a major son was not within
thtr;ferms of the Award. It was rather a concession given
by the States who were parties to the NWDT Award after
the Award was delivered during the course of subsequent E
negotiations, and, therefore, could not be a part of the
Award. The previous decisions,* therefore, would not be
a binding precedent for the purpose of the instant case
as it was under some mistaken belief that the Award was
understood to have extended the said benefit to major
F
sons also.