Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Project Affected Families in Narmada Bachao Andolan Case (22 September 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 September 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Hima Kohli, J, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J

Can a court modify its own order to provide enhanced compensation to project-affected families years after the original judgment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Sardar Sarovar Project. The court was asked to clarify whether a previous order providing a fixed compensation amount could be interpreted to allow for a per-hectare calculation of compensation, potentially increasing the payout for some families. This judgment clarifies the scope and finality of the Supreme Court’s earlier order regarding compensation for project-affected families.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha. The opinion was authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (Tribunal) issued its final order on 12 December 1979, addressing the resettlement and rehabilitation of families displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Project. The Tribunal mandated the allotment of agricultural land to displaced families, specifically those losing more than 25% of their landholding. The policy stipulated that every displaced family would receive a minimum of 2 hectares of irrigable land.

In September 1989, the State of Madhya Pradesh formulated a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy (R&R Policy), which also stipulated the allotment of 2 hectares of land to displaced families. If more than 2 hectares were acquired, the same would be allotted, with a maximum limit of 8 hectares. In 2000, a Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) was established to address the grievances of project-affected families.

The applicant, Ms. Archana, had 4.293 hectares of land acquired, for which she was initially offered compensation of Rs 5,48,072. She was also offered 4.293 hectares of land in Village Talwada. However, she claimed the allotted land was not cultivable.

On 8 February 2017, the Supreme Court passed an order to provide an equitable settlement for the rehabilitation of project-affected families. The Court determined that 681 families were yet to receive full compensation. The Court, after considering various submissions, directed that these 681 families be paid a sum of Rs 60 lakhs per family as a full and final settlement. Additionally, 1,358 families who had been duped were to receive Rs 15 lakhs per family.

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the GRA informed Ms. Archana that she was eligible for a final payment of Rs 60 lakhs, after adjusting previous payments. Ms. Archana then claimed she was entitled to Rs 1,28,79,000, calculated at Rs 30 lakhs per hectare for her 4.293 hectares of land. The GRA rejected her claim, leading to a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was also dismissed. A Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was withdrawn with permission to seek clarification of the 8 February 2017 order. This led to the present Miscellaneous Application.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core legal framework of this case is based on the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award of 1979. Clause IV(7) of the Award stipulates that:

“Every displaced family from whom more than 25% of its land holding is acquired shall be entitled to and be allotted irrigable land to the extent of land acquired from it subject to the prescribed ceiling in the state concerned and a minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres) per family, the irrigation facilities being provided by the State in whose territory the allotted land is situated : This land shall be transferred to the oustee family if it agrees to take it.”

The Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of Madhya Pradesh, formulated in 1989, also states in Clause 3.2:

“Without taking care of it that whether the land for allotment is government land or the purchased land is personal land, 2 hectares of land shall be allotted to those entitled oustee families whose agricultural land has been acquired. If the acquired land is of more than 2 hectares, then as far as possible, the same shall be allotted, but the maximum limit of land to be allotted shall not be more than 8 hectares.”

Arguments

Applicant’s Arguments:

• The applicant argued that according to the Tribunal’s Award of 1979, she was entitled to 4.293 hectares of land.
• She contended that while she had opted for land in lieu of land, the allotted land was uncultivable.
• The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court’s order of 8 February 2017, which fixed compensation at Rs 60 lakhs per family, was based on an average rate of Rs 30 lakhs per hectare for a holding of two hectares.
• The applicant argued that her compensation should be calculated at Rs 30 lakhs per hectare for her 4.293 hectares, amounting to approximately Rs 1.28 crores, not the fixed Rs 60 lakhs.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Additional Solicitor General argued that the Supreme Court’s order of 8 February 2017 was made under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.
• The respondent submitted that paragraph 7 of the order clearly stated that Rs 60 lakhs per family was a full and final settlement for 681 project-affected families.
• The respondent contended that the discussions in paragraph 6 of the order were merely submissions made during deliberations and not the basis of the final order.
• The respondent argued that the final settlement package of Rs 60 lakhs was comprehensive and cannot be broken down into a per-hectare calculation.
• The respondent asserted that seeking a modification of the order would amount to a substantive review, which is not permissible.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the directions in the Supreme Court’s order dated 8 February 2017, which provided a fixed compensation of Rs 60 lakhs per family, can be clarified or modified to allow for compensation at the rate of Rs 30 lakhs per hectare for the entirety of the land holding of 4.293 hectares.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1979 was acknowledged as the basis of the applicant’s claim. However, the Court emphasized that the order of 8 February 2017 was intended to resolve all disputes arising from the award.

✓ The Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 was considered in the context of land allotment provisions.

✓ Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 was cited to reiterate the finality of the Tribunal’s award.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure the finality of its previous order and to provide a comprehensive settlement for all project-affected families. The Court emphasized that the order of 8 February 2017 was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution to achieve complete justice and that the compensation of Rs 60 lakhs was a full and final settlement.

The Court also considered the fact that there were 1358 project-affected families who had been duped and had not received any compensation. The Court’s intention was to resolve all pending disputes and provide a conclusive resolution to the matter.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The legal considerations included the finality of the Court’s order under Article 142 and the need to provide a comprehensive settlement.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on the plain reading of its earlier order and the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Court explicitly stated that the settlement package of Rs 60 lakhs per family represented a final compensation package, which was directed to be paid in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that this package was not susceptible to being broken down into a per-hectare determination.

The Court rejected any alternative interpretations that would allow for a higher compensation based on a per-hectare calculation. The Court’s decision was based on the need to uphold the finality of its orders and to ensure a comprehensive resolution for all affected families.

The Court stated that “the quantum of Rs 60 lakhs per family represented a comprehensive settlement package. That package is incapable of being broken down into a per hectare determination.”

The Court also held that “Once the Court had arrived at a final figure of Rs 60 lakhs per family recording that this would be in full and final settlement and directions were issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142, it is impermissible for the applicant to claim any amount in excess of that determination.”

The Court further stated that “the settlement package of Rs 60 lakhs per family represents a final compensation package which was directed to be paid in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court’s order of 8 February 2017, which fixed compensation at Rs 60 lakhs per family, is a full and final settlement and cannot be modified or clarified to allow for a per-hectare calculation.
• Orders passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are intended to achieve complete justice and are not easily susceptible to modification.
• Project-affected families who have received the Rs 60 lakhs compensation cannot claim additional amounts based on land entitlement.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of finality in judicial orders, particularly those aimed at resolving long-standing disputes.
• The judgment clarifies that the Court’s intention was to provide a comprehensive resolution for all affected families, and not to create a formula for compensation based on land holdings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) has not taken any decision on the representations/applications filed by the applicants, the applicants can move the GRA for expeditious disposal of their applications. The GRA was directed to dispose of the applications within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. If the applicants are aggrieved by the order of the GRA, they can challenge it before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a final order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, intended to provide a comprehensive settlement, is not susceptible to modification or clarification that would alter the finality of the order. This case reinforces the principle that orders passed under Article 142 are meant to achieve complete justice and are not open to re-interpretation or modification that would undermine the finality of the settlement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification or modification of its order dated 8 February 2017. The Court held that the compensation of Rs 60 lakhs per family was a full and final settlement and cannot be broken down into a per-hectare calculation. The decision emphasizes the finality of orders passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and provides clarity on the compensation package for project-affected families of the Sardar Sarovar Project.

Category

Parent Category: Resettlement and Rehabilitation

Child Category: Compensation

Parent Category: Supreme Court of India

Child Category: Article 142

Parent Category: Narmada Bachao Andolan

Child Category: Sardar Sarovar Project

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Category: Article 142, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Narmada Bachao Andolan case?

A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court’s previous order fixing compensation at Rs 60 lakhs per family could be modified to allow for a per-hectare calculation, potentially increasing the payout for some families.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court dismissed the application for modification, holding that the Rs 60 lakhs compensation was a full and final settlement and could not be broken down into a per-hectare calculation.

Q: What is Article 142 of the Constitution?

A: Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any case before it.

Q: What was the basis of the applicant’s claim?

A: The applicant claimed that she was entitled to 4.293 hectares of land as per the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award and that the compensation should be calculated at Rs 30 lakhs per hectare.

Q: What does this judgment mean for project-affected families?

A: Project-affected families who have received the Rs 60 lakhs compensation cannot claim additional amounts based on land entitlement. The Supreme Court’s order is final and cannot be modified.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment reinforces the principle that orders passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 are meant to achieve complete justice and are not open to re-interpretation or modification that would undermine the finality of the settlement.