STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR versus MEDHA PATKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 02-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 664 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR 
v. 
MEDHA PATKAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 2011) 
AUGUST 2, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL, DEEPAK VERMA AND 
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION: 
Acquisition of land to set up canals - Compensation -
'Canal affected persons' - After construction of Indira Sagar 
Project and Omkareshwar Dam, land acquired for setting up 
canals - Writ petition claiming full benefits of Rehabilitation 
0 
and Resettlement Policy framed for Narmada Valley Projects, 
for canal affected persons also - Held: This Court in Narmada 
Bachao Ando/an-I has held that 'canal affected persons' 
cannot be put at par with 'submergence affected persons' - It 
was not permissible for the High Court to take a contrary view 
E - The definition of 'oustee' under the Narmada Water Dispute 
Tribunal Award does not take within its ambit the 'canal 
affected person' nor does the said award apply to the projects 
in the instant case - However, in the interim order, Supreme 
Court has taken care of 'hardship cases' - Further, as 
suggested by the State Government, the date of s. 4 
F 
notification shifted to the date of the instant judgment in 
relation to the canal affected persons and the Land Acquisition 
Collector directed to reconsider the market value of the land 
in question accordingly and make supplementary awards in 
accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act -
G It is clarified that the further canal work would be subject to 
clearance which may be given by MoEF - Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 - Public Interest litigation - Precedent. 
On completion of Indira Sagar Project and 
H 
664 
• 
.. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. MEDHA 665 
PATKAR & ORS. 
Omkareshwar dam, in order to set up canals, land 
A 
acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 18994 were initiated. The respondents 
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the 
acquisition of land for construction of canals on the 
grounds, inter-a/ia, that Command Area Development 
B 
plans (CAD Plans) had not been submitted by the State 
nor had it been approved by the Ministry of Environment 
and Forest (MoEF); that there had been no compliance 
of Panchayats (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 
(PESA Act) which required consultation with office c 
bearers of Panchayats before initiation of land 
acquisition proceedings; that the canal affected persons 
were also entitled for the full benefit of Rehabilitation and 
Resettlement Policy (R&R Policy) framed for the Narmada 
Valley Projects, including the allotment of land in lieu of · D 
the land acquired as per R & R policy. 
The High Court held, inter a/ia, that though there was 
an intelligible differentia in making the classification 
between the oustees of submerged areas of dam and 
canals, but the same has no rational nexus with the 
E 
object to achieve so far as the rehabilitation was 
concerned and, therefore, the persons affected by canal 
work were entitled to the same benefit as that of 
submergence affected persons. Aggrieved, the State 
Government filed the appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is evident from the Narmada Water 
Disputes Tribunal Award, 1997 that the definition of 
'oustee' does not take within its ambit the "canal affected 
G 
person". However, the said award does not apply to the 
projects in the instant case, as it was meant only for Inter-
state projects like Sardar Sarovar Project. [para 13] [676-
E-F; 677-C] 
H 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
1.2 So far as the Indira ·Sagar Project is concerned, 
it was given clearance on 24.6.1987 and did not have any 
specific direction for r~habilitation. Similarly, for 
Omkareshwar Project, clearance was granted on 
13.10.1993 and part (vii) thereof provided that the 
~ 
B rehabilitation programme would be extended to landless 
• 
labourers and people affected due to canal by identifying 
and allocating suitable land "as permissible". The words 
"as permissible" have been interpreted by this Court* and 
there is no reason to reconsider the issue afresh. [para 
c 14) [677-D·F] 
*Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 
SC 1989 - relied on. 
1.3 This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan-r* has 
' 
D taken a view that the canal affected persons cannot be 
put at par with the submergence affected persons. In 
view of the fact-situation, it was not permissible for the 
High Court to take a view contrary

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