Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 126 (MP)

General Manager (R & R) v. Lakhan Lal

2012-01-27

ALOK ARADHE

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1.With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2.In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thepetitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 18-5-2011 passed bythe Executing Court by which the Executing Court has rejected the applicationpreferred by the petitioner for adjustment of the amount for SpecialRehabilitation Grant from the amount of compensation awarded to the land ousters.In order to appreciate the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order, fewfacts need mention, which are stated infra. 3.Admittedly, lands belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been acquired underthe provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Indira Sagar Project. An award dated 13-9-2002 was passed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer 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 alsogranted a sum of Rs . 6 ,42,979 /-by way of Special Rehabilitation Grant (hereinafter referred to 'SRG'). Therepresentations were made on behalf of the land owners with regard to quantumof 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 amountof compensation. The action of extending the benefit of SRG to the land oustees was challenged by Narmada Bachao Andolan in a writpetition namely W.P. no. 3022/05. 4.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 directedthat- "the State Government would not advance a plea before the Civil Court that as the SRG has been granted thereshould be no enhancement of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer ifthe same is permissible within the parameters of said enactment". 5.Against the aforesaid order in the writ petition, the petitioner preferred aSpecial Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition was decided by the SupremeCourt vide order dated 11-5-2011 .The Supreme Court in the aforesaid order reported in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State ofM.P. and another, AIR 2011 SC 1989 , held that difference between the determinedvalue and the compensation already paid is SRG, which is payable to the projectaffected family. The Special Leave Petition was decided by the SupremeCourt vide order dated 11-5-2011 .The Supreme Court in the aforesaid order reported in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State ofM.P. and another, AIR 2011 SC 1989 , held that difference between the determinedvalue and the compensation already paid is SRG, which is payable to the projectaffected family. Accordingly, the Narmada ValleyDevelopment 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 beadjusted 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 theamount of compensation, which has been rejected by the Executing Court inter alia on theground that the petitioner is estopped from raisingthe plea of adjustment of SRG in view of the order passed by the DivisionBench. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached thisCourt. 6.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing Court while passing the impugned order hasmisinterpreted the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Theimpugned order has been passed in complete misunderstanding of the concept ofproviding SRG to the land owners. The impugned order is patently illegal. 7.On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted thatorder passed by the Executing Court is perfectly just and legal and does not call for any interference. LearnedGovernment Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has supported thestand taken by the petitioner. 8.I have considered the submissions made on both sides. From careful scrutiny ofthe order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Narmada HydroelectricDevelopment Corporation and others, 2006(4) M.P.H.T. 494 , it is apparent thatthe State Government has only been prohibited from taking a plea that since theSRG 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 adjustedtowards the amount of compensation. The NVDA has issued a circular as well asorder dated 24-3-2003 and 3-4-2008 respectively that incase theamount of compensation is enhanced, then the amount of SRG will be adjustedfrom the amount of compensation. The NVDA has issued a circular as well asorder dated 24-3-2003 and 3-4-2008 respectively that incase theamount of compensation is enhanced, then the amount of SRG will be adjustedfrom the amount of compensation. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs .State of M.P. and another, AIR 2011 SC 1989 (supra), the Supreme Court has heldthat difference between the determined value and the compensation already paidis called "SRG" and is paid to the project affected family. It hasfurther been held that SRG has been provided to the land oustees to purchase the lands suitable to them at the place o£ their choice. For theaforementioned reasons, it is apparent that Special Rehabilitation Grantdeserves to be adjusted towards the amount of compensation payable to the land oustees . 9.For the aforementioned reasons, the Executing Court grossly erred in holding that the amount of SRG cannot be adjusted towards theamount of compensation. The aforesaid order has been passed on the basis of misinterpretationof the order passed by the Division Bench. 10.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 SpecialRehabilitation Grant in the amount of compensation awarded to the land oustee . 11.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. C.C. as per rules.