General Manager (R and R), Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporation vs Lakhan Lal and Others

Alok Aradhe, J.—With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 18-5-2011 passed by the Executing Court by which the Executing Court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for adjustment of the amount for Special Rehabilitation Grant from the amount of compensation awarded to the land oustees. In order to appreciate the petitioner''s challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.

Admittedly, lands belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Indira Sagar Project. An award dated 13-9-2002 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer by which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been granted a sum of Rs. 2,88,031/- (exclusive of solatium and interest). The aforesaid respondents were also granted a sum of Rs. 6,42,979/- by way of Special Rehabilitation Grant (hereinafter referred to ''SRG''). The representations were made on behalf of the land owners with regard to quantum of compensation. Thereupon, the State Government took a decision on 30-4-1999 to provide SRG. Accordingly, a circular dated 26-5-1999 followed by an order dated 15-5-2000 was issued by which SRG was to be provided towards the appropriation of amount of compensation. The action of extending the benefit of SRG to the land oustees was challenged by Narmada Bachao Andolan in a writ petition namely W.P. no. 3022/05.

The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 8-9-2006. While disposing of the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court inter alia directed that-- "the State Government would not advance a plea before the Civil Court that as the SRG has been granted there should be no enhancement of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer if the same is permissible within the parameters of said enactment".

Against the aforesaid order in the writ petition, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition. The SLP was decided by the Supreme Court vide order dated 11-5-2011. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid order reported in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, held that difference between the determined value and the compensation already paid is SRG, which is payable to the project affected family. Accordingly, the Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) has issued a circular dated 24-3-2003 and order dated 3-4-2008 that if compensation is enhanced by the Reference Court, then the amount of SRG paid shall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation paid to the land oustee. The petitioner submitted an application before the Executing Court for adjustment of the amount of SRG from the amount of compensation, which has been rejected by the Executing Court inter alia on the ground that the petitioner is estopped from raising the plea of adjustment of SRG in view of the order passed by the Division Bench. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court while passing the impugned order has misinterpreted the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The impugned order has been passed in complete misunderstanding of the concept of providing SRG to the land owners. The impugned order is patently illegal.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that order passed by the Executing Court is perfectly just and legal and does not call for any interference. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has supported the stand taken by the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made on both sides. From careful scrutiny of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Narmada Hydroelectric Development Corporation and Others, , it is apparent that the State Government has only been prohibited from taking a plea that since the SRG has been granted, therefore there should be no enhancement of the award. The Division Bench has nowhere said that the amount of SRG cannot be adjusted towards the amount of compensation. The NVDA has issued a circular as well as order dated 24-3-2003 and 3-4-2008 respectively that in case the amount of compensation is enhanced, then the amount of SRG will be adjusted from the amount of compensation. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, , the Supreme Court has held that difference between the determined value and the compensation already paid is called "SRG" and is paid to the project affected family. It has further been held that SRG has been provided to the land oustees to purchase the lands suitable to them at the place of their choice. For the aforementioned reasons, it is apparent that Special Rehabilitation Grant deserves to be adjusted towards the amount of compensation payable to the land oustees.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Executing Court grossly erred in holding that the amount of SRG cannot be adjusted towards the amount of compensation. The aforesaid order has been passed on the basis of misinterpretation of the order passed by the Division Bench.

In view of preceding analysis, the order dated 18-5-2011 passed by the Executing Court is quashed. The Executing Court is directed to adjust the amount of Special Rehabilitation Grant in the amount of compensation awarded to the land oustee. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

C.C. as per rules.