Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

37] One of the peculiar features of these two affidavits is the invocation of several "doctrines" by the State Authorities for several purposes. They invoke the doctrine of eminent domain when it comes to acquisition of petitioners property from the affected zone. They invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity when it comes to payment of compensation to the petitioners. They invoke the doctrine of faith and duty to take care when it comes to explaining the delay for non completion of the works upon the Right Bank Canal, in the context of acquisition of lands in the benefited zone or undertaking construction 37 of 74 skc 38 JUDGMENT-WP-6620-12-GROUP MATTER activities in forest areas without permission from the MOEF. They invoke the doctrine of larger public good to contend that the petitioners, as private citizens, must not complain about acquisition of their property or delay in making available water and irrigation facilities to the land allotted to them, since, making such facility available to them is not a priority, taking into consideration the paucity of finances with the State Authorities. As if all this was not enough, the State Authorities, in these affidavits also invoke the doctrine of public trust to state that such doctrine is not "necessarily confined to natural resources only" but has a "broad application and it applies with equal force to the finances of the State". These affidavits also invoke "precautionary and public interest principle" stating that the State Authorities are duty bound to spend amounts "purely in public interest and by exercising due care and caution". Finally, these affidavits state that the State Authorities , in construction of dam and canal discharge "non profit making welfare function of the State Government, which is sovereign in nature".

5] I say that if the land owners concerned fully cooperate then it is not difficult to complete the distribution system on or before 31st October 2017."

46] The State Authorities in the present case have not only acted in breach of their statutory obligations under the said Act but further, they have infringed the petitioners human rights as well as right to livelihood, which is an essential concomitant to the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners were uprooted from the affected zone in the year 2001. The State Authorities have retained 65% of the otherwise meagre compensation awarded to them for the acquisition of their ancestral lands and houses in the affected zone, which have since submerged under the Nira Deoghar Dam Waters. Such retention of compensation was because the State Authorities, consistent with their statutory obligations under the said Act, had agreed to allot the petitioners alternate lands in villages and areas having the benefit of irrigation project. In reality however, the lands allotted to the petitioners at Shedgewadi are found to be barren for want of adequate water supply and irrigation facility. The material on record establishes that from the year 2001, the petitioners have been clamoring for water supply and irrigation facility , which, the State Authorities were obliged to provide, 43 of 74 skc 44 JUDGMENT-WP-6620-12-GROUP MATTER not just in terms of the said Act, but also, as a measure of their constitutional obligation. The State Authorities, whilst not seriously denying this position, have, for reasons which are far from convincing delayed completion of the construction of Right Bank Canal up to the villages of Bhade and Andori, thereby, depriving the petitioners water supply and irrigation facility for the last decade and a half. Such deprivation for such length of time constitutes deprivation of right to livelihood otherwise than by the procedure prescribed by law. The record, including the desperate sales by some of the petitioners, indicate that the State Authorities, by their inaction and apathy, denied the petitioners their very right to livelihood as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

47] In Sahyadri Punarvasan Gaothan Vikas Sanstha vs. Pandharpur Municipal Council23, Division Bench of this Court was concerned with the grievances of persons displaced by the Kanhar Dam in Satara District in the matter of proper implementation of the resettlement programme. This court observed that it was unfortunate that whenever irrigation projects are undertaken in the name of larger public good, people residing in remote villages are displaced. Not only they get thrown out from the areas where they are residing for decades together, but upon shifting, minimum and basic amenities are also not guaranteed to them. It is a common grievance of the people that while residing decades together, with State assistance and most of the time on their own, they establish schools, play grounds, cremation grounds etc.. However, everything is gone the moment the villages are submerged. Such people are then shifted at far off places. In the name of resettlement and rehabilitation, virtually nothing is provided. This is the grievance on most occasions. People get thrown 23 2005(3) Bom.C.R. 210 44 of 74 skc 45 JUDGMENT-WP-6620-12-GROUP MATTER out and displaced physically, mentally and socially. Communities which are residing together for decades are forced to adjust with totally different living conditions. This has a deleterious effect upon all sections and stratas of society, but more particularly upon women and children. The Division Bench, after reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samata Vs. State of A.P24., has held that right to reputation, right to privacy, right to equal opportunities of personal, social, community growth and development are facets of the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The mandate is clear. Right to live has to be made meaningful, purposeful and relevant. It is not as if only the urban population is entitled to the benefit of basic amenities. It is a misnomer and the misconception when we proceed on the basis that the people living in the villages do not require toilets, open spaces, markets, burial grounds, roads, electricity and water supply. Even after 57 years of independence, we are unable to provide these basic amenities. The response of State is not at all encouraging. It is unfortunate that absolutely no attention is paid to these aspects when implementing and undertaking public project. The courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted the matter of total rehabilitation. In fact, the need of hour is to first habitate and then commence the work. However, neither this nor rehabilitation has been done sincerely and honestly. Funds are allocated but rarely disbursed. If disbursed, there is no account of actual expenditure. Although expended on paper, at site, nothing is visible. It is time that rehabilitation is done sincerely, honestly and diligently.

49] In N.D Jayal Vs. Union of India26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that rehabilitation of the oustees is a logical corollary of Article 26 2004 (9) SCC 362 46 of 74 skc 47 JUDGMENT-WP-6620-12-GROUP MATTER 21 of the Constitution. At paragraph 60, the Supreme Court has observed thus:

60. Rehabilitation is not only about providing just food, clothes or shelter. It is also about extending support to rebuild livelihood by ensuring necessary amenities of life. Rehabilitation of the oustees is a logical corollary of Article 21. The oustees should be in a better position to lead a decent life and earn livelihood in the rehabilitated locations. Thus observed this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan case. The overarching projected benefits from the dam should not be counted as an alibi to deprive the fundamental rights of oustees. They should be rehabilitated as soon as they are uprooted. And none of them should be allowed to wait for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation should take place before six months of submergence. Such a time-limit was fixed by this Court in B.D. Sharma V. Union of India