Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

36] On 11 July 2016, Bapusaheb R. Pawar, Executive Engineer, Nira Deoghar Project, has filed an affidavit. On 28 July, 2016, Ravindra E. Upasani, Superintending Engineer and Deputy Secretary to Government of Maharasthra, Water Resources Department, has filed an affidavit. There is no appreciable difference in the contents of the two affidavits. The entire thrust of these affidavits is to resist the payment of compensation to the petitioners. In these affidavits, whilst not disputing the indisputable delay in providing water and irrigation facilities to the lands allotted to the petitioners, the deponents have referred to several reasons, or rather, excuses in order to justify such culpable delay. These affidavits also state that some of the petitioners have sold the lands allotted to them at Shedgewadi between the years 2013 and 2015 and at least such petitioners should be denied compensation or any other relief.

38] The affidavits also state that the award of compensation would involve adjudication into disputed questions of fact and therefore, the petitioners must be relegated to the ordinary remedies of instituting civil suits, if they so desire. The affidavits also state that some of the petitioners have sold the allotted lands to third parties and are therefore, not entitled to any reliefs in the petitions instituted by them. The affidavits set out that the Nira Deoghar Project, when conceived in 1984 had a budget sanction of 61.47 crores, but by the year 2002, the budget was revised to 910.90 crores, suggesting that it may not be possible to expend further amounts upon the project. The affidavits also state that compensation can be awarded under Article 226 of the Constitution only where "facts were gross and almost undisputed", as if 38 of 74 skc 39 JUDGMENT-WP-6620-12-GROUP MATTER to suggest that unreasonable delay of over 16 years in the present case is not gross and was in any manner, disputed. It is necessary to note that in the initial affidavit, no such pleas were taken or in any case seriously taken. It is only after this court directed the payment of compensation and such direction was not stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , these affidavits have been filed. We are sorry to note that the tenor and the contents of such affidavits betray the sense of responsibility and sensitivity towards the plight of the project affected persons like the petitioners who have been deprived their right to livelihood at least since the year 2001.

45] We must note however, that the affidavit dated 20 September 2016 filed by Mr. S.N. Bolbhat, Executive Engineer, Nira Deoghar Project , is to some extent encouraging. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this affidavit, the Executive Engineer has stated thus:

"3. I say that the work of Right Bank Canal of Nira Deoghar Project has been completed upto Km 40. As regards the remaining portion of Km 41 to Km 65 are complete save and except the bottleneck portion. The said remaining work will be completed as early as possible and preferably not later than 31.3.2017. Care would be taken to see that this work is complete before this date.

54] From the analysis of the provisions of the said Act as also the law laid down on the subject by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the State Authorities were both, 30 (2009) 14 SCC 54 52 of 74 skc 53 JUDGMENT-WP-6620-12-GROUP MATTER statutorily as well as constitutionally obliged to provide to the petitioners land receiving the benefit of irrigation from the Nira Deoghar Project or at least, to make available to the lands allotted to the petitioners some reasonable amount of water supply and irrigation facility, so as to render such lands fit for agriculture. Such obligation can be culled out not merely from the provisions of section 10 of the said Act, but also, the provisions of the Constitution of India, including but not restricted to Article 21 thereof. In the facts of the present case, the need to comply with such obligation was even greater since, the petitioners, on account of the acquisition of their ancestral lands and houses from the affected zone had been virtually rendered destitute. This was not a case of simple acquisition of land and houses but rather, this was a case of acquisition of the very livelihood of the petitioners. From 1996 onwards, the State Authorities have retained with themselves 65 % of the otherwise meagre compensation awarded to the petitioners for the acquisition of their lands and houses in the affected zone. The ancestral lands and houses of the petitioners were submerged under the Nira Deoghar Dam Waters by the year 2000. The petitioners were uprooted from their environs and relocated at Shedgewadi, without any measures of rehabilitation worth the name being provided for them. In particular, the lands allotted to the petitioners remain barren for want of water supply and irrigation facility. The State Authorities have breached their own policies of rehabilitation first and development later. The State Authorities have acted in breach of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of N.D. Jayal (supra) and Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra) that rehabilitation should take place before six months of submergence and such prior rehabilitation will create a sense of confidence amongst the oustees and they will be in a better position to start their life by acclimatizing themselves with the new environment. The absence of any pre-