Summary
The applicant's family lost 4.293 hectares to the Sardar Sarovar Project. Under the 1979 Narmada Tribunal award they were entitled to an equal area of agricultural land, but the land offered was said to be uncultivable. The Court's order of 8 February 2017 under Article 142 had settled the claims of 681 uncompensated project-affected families at Rs. 60 lakh per family, in full and final settlement. The applicant claimed that the order implied Rs. 30 lakh a hectare and sought about Rs. 1.28 crore for her 4.293 hectares. The GRA and the High Court rejected the claim. The Supreme Court dismissed her application to clarify or modify the 2017 order. The Rs. 60 lakh was a comprehensive per-family package that cannot be broken down per hectare, and Article 142 directions cannot be reopened by a miscellaneous application.
Issues
- Whether the Rs. 60 lakh per family fixed by the order of 8 February 2017 implies a per-hectare rate entitling families with larger acquired holdings to more
- Whether directions issued under Article 142 as a full and final settlement can be clarified or modified on a miscellaneous application
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe 2017 order fixing Rs. 60 lakh per family in full and final settlement was passed under Article 142 and is not susceptible to further clarification or modification on a miscellaneous application. (¶¶ 18, 27, 28)
Held
- The figure of Rs. 30 lakh a hectare appears only in the record of counsel's submissions in the 2017 order. The Court's operative direction fixed Rs. 60 lakh per family as a comprehensive settlement package, which cannot be broken down into a per-hectare determination. The applicant cannot claim more than that. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Although the Tribunal's award is final and binding, it had generated extensive litigation. The 2017 order was a consolidated resolution under Article 142, covering also the families found to have been duped and ending all related litigation, and it was not to be treated as a precedent. Its paragraph 7 is unambiguous and cannot be modified on a miscellaneous application. The High Court correctly read it in rejecting the applicant's writ petition. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- Applicants whose representations seeking the benefit of the 2017 order were pending before the GRA may move it for disposal within two months, with liberty to challenge its decision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Result
Miscellaneous Application No. 2279 of 2018 dismissed. Connected applications disposed of with liberty to approach the GRA; other applications dismissed for non-prosecution.