STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. versus BHERU SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 01-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 1 S.C.R. 535 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
V. 
BHERU SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1211 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, 
JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION: 
Acquisition of land for construction of Man Dam in State 
of MP-Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R Policy) 
framed by State Government - Claim for 2 hectares of land 
A 
B 
c 
for each major son of the landholder whose land had been 
acquired - Held: Since the claim of entitlement of land is 
D 
based exclusively on a policy decision of the State 
Government which has been incorporated in R & R Policy, 
the entitlement would be determined strictly based on the 
Policy - R & R Policy makes it clear that only such displaced 
family whose more than 25% of land holding had been 
acquired, would be entitled to compensation of 2 hectares 
E 
of land and this displacement of land would not merely be 
notional - If each major son of the displaced family had not 
been separately deprived of 25% of the land, then even as 
per the R & R Policy, they were not entitled 2 hectares of land. 
F 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: 
The oasteesldisplaced persons are weak and vulnerable 
tribal population whose plea may get ignored or are not 
properly addressed - In order to impart full justice to the 
G 
causes in terms of R & R Policy, it is desirable that the State 
Government may constitute an appellate forum where the 
aggrieved party may challenge the decision of GRA in case 
there is any justifiable reason to do so - Public Interest 
Litigation. 
535 
H 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
REFERENCE TO LARGER BENCH: 
Conflicting views in two judgements of Supreme Court -
Held: Though there appears to be conflict in two judgments 
of the Supreme Court in regard to claim of share by each 
8 major son of the family whose land has been acquired for 
construction of the dam, the issue arises out of a policy 
decision of the State Government and hence the same at the 
most would be confined to R & R Policy as the issue is not 
really a legal issue emerging from any statutory provisions 
having a bearing in future on other simifar controversy, so as 
C to refer it to a Constitution Bench; the Court refrains from 
referring the question to a larger Bench. 
In the process of construction of Man Dam on the 
tributary of Narmada river in the State of Madhya 
D Pradesh, lands of 448 families were acquired, out of 
which 62 families opted for and were allotted land as per 
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R & R policy). 
The remaining 386 families accepted full cash 
compensation in terms of R & R policy. Subsequently, 
E the State Government took a decision as a welfare 
measure to grant Special Rehabilitation Grant (SRG) to 
the families/ oustees who had lost their land, in order to 
enabie them to purchase land of their own choice to the 
extent they had lost in the submergence on the condition 
F that they would not claim any land from the Government. 
Out of the 386 families who had accepted full cash 
compensation, 337 families accepted the SRG. Disputes, 
which arose while implementing the R & R Policy and 
disbursement of SRG, were referred to the Grievance 
Redressal Authority. Aggrieved by some of the orders 
G passed by the GRA a writ petition in public interest was 
filed before the High Court, which though held that there 
was substantial compliance of R & R policy, but directed 
the State Government to allot land to every son of the land 
holder, who had become a major on or before the 
H 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. BHERU 
537 
SINGH & ORS. 
notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act and was part of A 
the larger family from whom land had been acquired. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The two decisions of this Court reported 
in 2005 (4) SCC 32 (Narmada Bachao Ii ) and (2011) 7 
B 
SCC 639 (Narmada Bachao Ill) undoubtedly appear to be 
in conflict with each other in regard to the claim of share 
by each major son of the family of land holder whose 
land has been acquired. However, the question as to 
whether major sons would be included in the definition 
C 
of the displaced family or not is not really a legal issue 
emerging from any statutory provision or ambiguity in the 
Land Acquisition Act or any statute or an Act having a 
bearing in future on other similar controversy so as to 
refer it to a Constitution Bench of this Court. 
Since the 
D 
entire issue arises out of a policy decisi

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