ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. According to the petitioners even now there are 4262 project affected families who are not rehabilitated and land/housing has not been offered to them.It is also contended that in many cases land offered is neither irrigable nor cultivable and it is far away from the places where they are staying.It is also contended that most of the project affected families are compulsorily asked to accept Special Rehabilitation Package(SRP) and the State of M.P. is not offering them suitable land. The petitioners have also contended that the award is not being implemented in toto. These allegations are refuted by the counsel for the State of M.P. and it is alleged that out of 13868 project affected families, except 260 families, all have been rehabilitated.These 260 families are not accepting the SRP but they are preferring to accept the land and further steps are being taken in the matter. But no details are furnished by the State of M.P in this regard. 3. State of M.P. is directed to file a comprehensive affidavit within a period of two weeks giving out the details of rehabilitation so far done by the State so that if any of the facts stated in the affidavit could be verified or rebutted by the counsel representing the project affected families. The petitioner would be given a chance to rebut the allegations and thereafter the further course of action will be taken. State of M.P. should also state in the affidavit as to how through the SRP, the directions given in the judgment of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and others, 2005(4) SCC 32 : 2005(3) Scale 111 have been implemented. Union of India shall also file an additional affidavit.