NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 15-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 15, 2005 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Resettlement and Rehabilitation : 
Hydero-electric Project-Sardar Sarovar Dam-Resettlement and 
C Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families-'-Permanently and temporarily 
affected families-Interim applications by PAFs in the State of MP. for 
implementation of order of Supreme Court* and Narmada Water Disputes 
Tribunal Award-Benefits claimed to be extended to all major sons-Also to 
temporarily affected families and to heirs of land holders died prior to 
D Notification-Held, the applicants became affected with the raising of the dam 
at 90 metres and remained affected by further raising thereof upto 100 metres 
and, thus, in terms of the directions contained in the award as also the judgment 
of this Court, the applicants, irrespective of the fact as to whether they are 
permanently affected or temporarily affected, were entitled to the benefit of 
the rehabilitation package-All the applicants who were both permanently 
E and temporarily affected by submergence by reason of raising of the height 
of the dam to the present height would be entitled to the benefit of the 
rehabilitation package. 
The expression "pari passu'', has a direct nexus with raising of the 
height vis-a-vis implementation of relief and rehabilitation progress both of 
F which must proceed 'equably or ratably' which would mean that relief and 
rehabilitation measures must be undertaken as and when the height of the 
dam is further raised-The said expression should be construed in a meaningful 
manner-The definition of family' in the scheme undisputably includes major 
sons-A plain reading of the said definition clearly shows that even where a 
G major son of the land-holder did not possess land separately, he would be 
entitled to grant of a separate holding-As a major son constitutes 'separate 
family' within the interpretation clause of family', no meaning thereto can be 
given. 
Grievance Redressal Authority has rightly held that the applicants would 
II 
840 
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. U.0.1. 
841 
not be entitled to allotment of land of their choice but the land offered to them A 
should be irrigable and cultivable in terms of the judgment of this Court as 
well as the Award of the Tribunal-The State has constituted a land bank-
Normally, those lands which are available from the land bank should be 
allotted and in relation thereto, the parties may have a choice-But they 
cannot reject such land unless it is shown that the lands are not irrigable or 
cultivable or otherwise unsuitable-This Court in the main judgment did not B 
say that the oustees are to be relocated as a community-The question of 
rehabilitation inevitably would arise as and when they become entitled theret<>-
This Court cannot entertain applications raising grievance involving factual 
issues raised by the parties-The GRA being headed by a former Chief Justice 
of the High Court would indisputably be entitled to adjudicate upon such C 
disputes-It is also expected that the parties should ordinarily abide by such 
decision-Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal Act, 1956-ss. 5(2) and 5(4). 
Words and Phrases : 
'Pari passu '-Meaning of 
'Family '-Connotation of 
*Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India and Ors., [2000) l 0 SCC 
664 = [2000) Supp. 4 SCR 94, relied on. 
D 
E 
Goodfrey Phillips India Ltd and Anr. v State of U.P. and Ors., (2005) 
AIR SCW 613, referred to. 
. 
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn. ; G.P. Singh 's "Principles a/Statutory 
Interpretation", referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 10 in I.A. No. 4 and F 
I.A. No. 11 in I.A. No. 7 in W.P.C. No. 328 of of 2002. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Prashant Bhushan for the Petitoner 
G 
Ashok H. Desai,. T.S. Doabia, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mukul Rohtagi, Naresh o 
Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta A.A.G. for Rajasthan, Naveen Kumar Singh, Ms. 
Shivangi, Ms.Hemantika Wahi, Ms.Sadhana Sandhu, Ms. Varuna Bhandari 
Gugnani, syed Naqvi, D.S. Mahra, P. Parmeswaran, S. Muralidhar, Somiran 
Sharma, Amit Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, Ms.Anil Katiyar, shreekant N. Terdal, H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A Satish K. Agnihotri, Rohit K. Singh, Amit Mishra, Sanjay Parikh, Ms.Anitha 
Shenoy, A.N. Singh, R.B. Masodkar, S.S. Shinde and Mukesh K. Giri for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
S.B. SINHA, J. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: 
Sardar Sarov

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