| Headnote |
PLEADINGS:Pleadings - Writ petition by Narmada Bachao Andolan, as public interest litigation - Held: A party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averrnents made in the petition and in case the pleadings 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 be rejected at the threshold for the reason that the writ petition suffered for want of proper pleadings and material to substantiate the averments lallegations contained therein - Besides, there was no explanation as to under what circumstances the High Court had been approached at such 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, 1950- Article 226 - Writ petition - Delay / Laches - Remedy - Alternate remedy - Public Interest Litigation.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 - Providing for allotment of land and other benefits to oustees- Policy 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 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 the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to •· purchase and comply with the requirements 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 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 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 judgement of the High Court is liable to be set aside - The direction given by the High Court in paragraph 64 (i) of the judgement, 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 concerned, shall be entitled to the allotment of agricultural land "as far as possible" in terms of the R & R Policy, and for 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", "impotentia excusat legem" and "nemo tenetur ad impossibilia".Articles 300-A and 21 - Compensation for property acquired and rehabilitation 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 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 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 - Hydro-electric projects - Omkareshwar Dam in the basin of river Narmada - Writ petition under public interest litigation filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan 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 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 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 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 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 the court - Such conduct cannot be approved - However, in a PIL, 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 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 fairly and in case it has any doubt, refuse to entertain the NBA - However, considering the interests of the oustees, it may be desirable that the court may appoint Amicus Curiae to present their 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:Reliance upon a judgement- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy for oustees of Omkareshwar Dam - Term 'family'- Connotation of - Held: Court should not place reliance upon a judgement without discussing how the factual 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 judgement 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 Andolan has been decided with presumption that such a right had been conferred upon major sons by the NWDT Award and Narmada Bachao Andolan-II has been decided following the said judgement 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 - 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 - Direction given by the High Court to allot agricultural land to major sons of the oustees in Paragraph 64 (iii) of the impugned judgement is set aside - Principle of 'per inquiriam'- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.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 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 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 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 exercise of its power u/s 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.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 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 policy. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: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 - The Court has to interpret a provision giving it a construction 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 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 - Maxim: "a verbis legis non est recedendum". |
