Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 791 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bheru

2024-12-17

BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, VIVEK RUSIA

body2024
ORDER : Binod Kumar Dwivedi, J. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, IA No.5232 of 2016, an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 read with Section 2 of M.P. Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 for condonation of 318 days delay in filing Writ Appeal No.354 of 2016 is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned; IA No.5363 of 2016, an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 read with Section 2 of M.P. Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 for condonation of 324 days delay in filing Writ Appeal No.363 of 2016 is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned; and IA No.5395 of 2016, an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 read with Section 2 of M.P. Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 for condonation of 326 days delay in filing Writ Appeal No.376 of 2016 is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ appeals preferred by Narmada Valley Development Department of the State Government and writ petition preferred by affected persons (Girdhari S/o Gopichand and others) on account of submergence their land due to Sardar Sarovar Project of the State Government are heard analogously and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. 2. Facts of the case are being taken from Writ Appeal No.376/ 2016 (The State of Madhya Pradesh & another v. Girdharilal S/o Shri Gopichand & others) filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalayaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. Being aggrieved by common order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3397 of 2014 (The State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Girdhari S/o Gopichand and another) and other connected writ petitions, whereby the petitions filed by the appellants – State of Madhya Pradesh have been dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved by common order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3397 of 2014 (The State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Girdhari S/o Gopichand and another) and other connected writ petitions, whereby the petitions filed by the appellants – State of Madhya Pradesh have been dismissed. 3. Writ petitioners (Girdhari S/o Gopichand and another) have filed Writ Petition No.11254 of 2024 under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No.386 of 2016 by Grievance Redressal Authority, Madhya Pradesh (Sardar Sarovar Project) and order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Chairman of the GRA (Sardar Sarovar Project) in Case No.2010 of 2008, whereby the application filed by the writ petitioners (Girdhari S/o Gopichand & others) was allowed and the appellants – State of Madhya Pradesh has been directed to extend the benefits of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) even when writ petitioners / private respondents are not ordinarily residing in the submergence area and as per terms of Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award and R&R Policy framed by the appellants. The writ petitions filed by the State Government were dismissed by learned Single Judge by a common order dated 27.07.2015 by directing the writ petitioners – State Government by connecting this petition with Writ Petition No.7540 of 2013 (Krishnabai w/o Kunwarsingh & another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others) and other writ petitions. 4. It is submitted that as per the definition of ‘Oustee’ as provided in NWDT Award as well as R&R Policy, the beneficiary must reside and cultivate his / her land or carry on any trade, occupation or calling or working for gain in the area likely to be submerged at least one year prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. Learned Single Judge has decided the cases on the basis of Krishnabai’s matter, without considering the facts of the present case. In the present case, respondents No.1 and 2 (private respondent) were holding certain land inherited by them from their father. Learned Single Judge has decided the cases on the basis of Krishnabai’s matter, without considering the facts of the present case. In the present case, respondents No.1 and 2 (private respondent) were holding certain land inherited by them from their father. It is submitted that certain land inherited by them from their father at Village Lohara, Tehsil Thikri, District Barwani (MP), which went under submergence for which requisite compensation under the provisions of LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was duly provided and the land has been vested with the appellant – State Government. The respondents are neither residing in the area under submergence nor cultivating the land therefore do not fall under the definition of ‘Outsee’. Accordingly, the appellants – State Government filed their reply opposing the prayer of the private respondents. Learned GRA by its impugned order held that though respondents No.1 to 3 do not reside in the area under submergence, yet they fall under the definition of an ‘Oustee’ and directed the appellants – State Government to award all the benefits to them. The aforesaid order being contrary to the definition of ‘Oustee’ as provided under NWDT Award as well as R&R Policy of the State Government, was assailed in writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeals have been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, void, being contrary to the terms of NWDT Award as well as R&R Policy framed by the appellants - State Government. Learned Single Judge erred in holding that the petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order passed by a Tribunal or a Judicial Body, whereas GRA is an Authority constituted under notification issued by the State Government, whereas the petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petition is based on different subject matter whereas order passed by a common order was passed considering the subject matter of Krishnabai and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.7540 of 2013. 6. The petition is based on different subject matter whereas order passed by a common order was passed considering the subject matter of Krishnabai and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.7540 of 2013. 6. It is further submitted that the private respondents are not entitled for any benefit of R&R Policy, as they do not come under the definition of ‘Oustee’ as they were residing out of area of submergence, therefore, their forefathers have not faced a trauma of displacement and hence, are not an ‘Oustee’. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants – State Government prays for allowing these writ appeals by setting aside the impugned common order passed by learned Single Judge. 7. Learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned Single Judge, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, has passed the impugned order, taking into account the definition of ‘Oustee’ as provided under NWDT Award and also referring to the judgment (Paragraph No.5) of the Apex Court in the case of Natha Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 1053 , judgment (Paragraph No.4) of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash reported in AIR 2004 SC 3892 , judgment (Paragraph No.5) of the Apex Court in case of Shama Prashant Raje v. Ganpatrao and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 3094 , wherein the Supreme Court held that in proceedings under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the High Court is, therefore, supervisory and not appellate, meaning thereby, the apex court has held that the findings of fact, unless and until they are perverse findings, cannot be interfered with. 9. The jurisdiction of the High Court is, therefore, supervisory and not appellate, meaning thereby, the apex court has held that the findings of fact, unless and until they are perverse findings, cannot be interfered with. 9. The Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has also placed reliance on paragraph No.12 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 , paragraph No.10 of judgment in case of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madras and others v. P. S. Rajagopal Naidu reported in AIR 1970 SC 992 , paragraphs No.20 to 24 of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of G. Veerappa Pillai, Proprietor Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar Tanjore v. Raman and Raman Ltd. reported in AIR 1952 SC 192 and further placed reliance on a judgment (paragraph No.90) of the Supreme Court in case of Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar and others reported in JT 2011 (5) SCC 494. 10. Learned Single Judge, after placing reliance on the aforementioned judgments, has held that the High Court can only see whether the Authority concerned has acted with or without jurisdiction, but cannot inquire into complicated questions of facts and will not sit in appeal over the decision of the Authority whose orders are challenged in the proceedings. 11. Learned Single Judge has concluded that that the orders of the GRA challenged in the petitions are in consonance with the statutory provisions and the GRA was having jurisdiction in the matter to decide the appeal preferred by Krishna Bai. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the reasoned findings of fact arrived at by the GRA was found to be based on the cogent material produced by the State Government before the Authority. In absence of any other cogent material produced by the State Government either before the GRA, or before the learned Single Judge, it was held that the question of interference does not arise. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order has been passed dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants – State Government. 12. We are of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order, hence the present writ appeals filed by the appellants – State being sans merit, fail and are hereby dismissed. 13. 12. We are of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order, hence the present writ appeals filed by the appellants – State being sans merit, fail and are hereby dismissed. 13. Since Writ Petition No.11254 of 2021 has been filed for the relief that order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Chairman, GRA, Sardar Sarovar Project in Case No.2010 of 2008 and order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Case No.386 of 2016 by GRA for giving the compensation amount to the writ petitioners be complied with expeditiously. Looking to the fact that writ appeals have been dismissed as found without substance, this writ petition is allowed and disposed off with a direction to the respondents – State Government that order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the GRA of Sardar Sarovar Project in Case No.2010 of 2008 and order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Case No.386 of 2016 by GRA (Sardar Sarovar Project) be complied in a time bound manner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of order of this Court. 14. Accordingly, Writ Appeals No.354, 363 and 376 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.11254 of 2021 are disposed off. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed off.