Case Note & Summary
The case involved the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a non-governmental organization, which filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others regarding the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP). The SSP aimed to provide irrigation and drinking water and generate power, affecting numerous residents in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. The NBA raised concerns about the rehabilitation of project-affected families (PAFs), particularly regarding the responsibilities of the State of Madhya Pradesh in providing adequate rehabilitation facilities. The Supreme Court had previously issued directions in 2000, emphasizing that displacement does not inherently violate rights and that rehabilitation must be effective. The court noted that the State of Madhya Pradesh had been lax in its rehabilitation efforts, leading to a significant number of PAFs opting for resettlement in Gujarat due to better packages. The court found that the State's argument for lowering the dam's height to reduce displacement was insufficient, as it failed to implement rehabilitation measures effectively. The court issued directions for the states involved to comply with the tribunal's award regarding rehabilitation and to expedite the process. The court also addressed the distinction between temporary and permanent oustees, ruling that both categories were entitled to rehabilitation under the award. The court emphasized that adult sons of landholders should be treated as separate families for the purpose of land allotment. The decision reinforced the obligation of the states to adhere to the rehabilitation provisions set forth in the tribunal's award and the need for timely action to ensure the welfare of affected families.
Headnote
A) Water Law - Rehabilitation of Oustees - Distinction between Temporary and Permanent Affected Families - Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, Section 5 - The court held that the definition of 'oustees' includes both permanently and temporarily affected persons, and thus, no distinction should be made in terms of rehabilitation. The State of Madhya Pradesh's contention of distinction was rejected, emphasizing the obligation to rehabilitate all affected families (Paras 7-8). B) Water Law - Entitlement of Adult Sons - Rights to Rehabilitation Package - Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, Clause XI - The court determined that adult sons of landholders are entitled to separate allotments under the rehabilitation package, as they are considered separate families under the award. The State's argument against this entitlement was dismissed (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether there exists a distinction between temporarily and permanently affected persons in the NWDT Award and whether adult sons are entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that both temporary and permanent affected families are entitled to rehabilitation under the NWDT Award. It directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to comply with the rehabilitation provisions and emphasized that adult sons of landholders are entitled to separate allotments. The court mandated that the states involved must expedite the rehabilitation process and adhere to the tribunal's award.
Law Points
- Inter-State Water Disputes Act
- 1956
- rehabilitation of oustees
- fundamental rights
- resettlement policies
- compliance with tribunal awards
