NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 22-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2279 of 2019 and 610 of 2020
in
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 328 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI
AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Rehabilitation of displaced persons –
Compensation – In case of applicant an order was passed by the
Court of the Land Acquisition Officer, Sardar Sarovar Project
indicating that the land which was acquired was 4.293 hectares
and determining the compensation payable at Rs 5,48,072/- and
the applicant would also be entitled to the allotment of 4.293 hectares
of agricultural land – Following the order of Supreme Court in
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.328 of
2002) on 08.02.2017, the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA)
intimated the applicant that in terms of the said order she was eligible
to receive a final payment of Rs 60 lakhs after adjusting the payment
which was made to her earlier – The applicant submitted a
representation to the GRA claiming that since her entitlement was
for the allotment of 4.293 hectares of agricultural land, she would
be entitled to receive compensation of Rs 1,28,79,000/- equivalent
to the area of the land – The GRA rejected the claim which led to
the institution of Writ Petition and the same was dismissed – Special
Leave Petition filed before Supreme Court was dismissed as
withdrawn – Thereafter, an Miscellaneous application for
clarification/modification of order dated 08.02.2017 – Held : 681
project affected families who were yet to receive compensation, were
to be paid an amount at the rate of Rs 60 lakhs per family as a
matter of full and final settlement – In other words, the quantum of
Rs 60 lakhs per family represented a comprehensive settlement
package – The package was incapable of being broken down into
a per hectare determination – Once the Court had arrived at a final
figure of Rs 60 lakhs per family recording that this would be in full
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 708
708
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
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.
Disposing of the applications, the Court
HELD : 1. The crux of the issue which falls for decision is
whether the directions which are contained in the order of this
Court dated 8 February 2017 are susceptible to either a
clarification or modification to the effect that the applicant should
be granted compensation at the rate of Rs 30 lakhs per hectare
for the entirety of the land holding of 4.293 hectares to which she
had been found to be entitled for the allotment of agricultural
land. There is no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the
Award of the Tribunal dated 12 December 1979, the applicant
had opted for the allotment of agricultural land in lieu of the
acquisition of a portion of the land holding. The order of this
Court dated 8 February 2017 represented a comprehensive
determination of the compensation which would be payable to
those families who were yet to receive compensation either in
full or in part. [Para 26][718-F-H]
2. Based on the rival submissions, the Court held that 681
project affected families who were yet to receive compensation
would be paid an amount at the rate of Rs 60 lakhs per family as
a matter of full and final settlement. In other words, 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. 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.
[Para 27][719-B-D]
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10
SCC 664 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94             referred to         Para 10
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 2279 of 2018 in Writ Petiton (Civil) No. 328 of 2022.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
With
Miscellaneous Application No. 610 Of 2020 In Writ Pet

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.