Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India - International ...

162. It is also submitted that there were major lacunae in the said policy like the three States having dissimilarpolicy for R&R. This difference in rehabilitation packages of different States, with the package of Gujarat beingmore favourable, is leading to a situation where the oustees are forced to shift to Gujarat. The other lacunae whichare stated to have many serious problems are alleged to be non provision for fuelwood and grazing land withfodder. No provision for rehabilitation of people involved in non-agricultural occupation. According to the petitionerthe number of affected people even by submergence have been underestimated. The policy regime governing themhas many serious lacunae. The increase in the numbers is due to lack of proper surveys and planning and theprovision of just and due entitlements to the PAFs. Since this process of providing just entitlements is still incomplete,and the policies need a thorough review, the numbers and entitlements are likely to go up further. Even themagnitude of the task of R&R cannot be assessed properly till the above are considered and proper policiesintroduced.163. It is also contended that before embarking on the Sardar Sarovar Project it was necessary that the Master Planfor rehabilitation of the families to be affected is completed. According to the petitioner the Master Plan whichwas submitted in the Court cannot be regarded as an acceptable Master Plan inasmuch as it had no mention ofpeople affected by Sardar Sarovar Project other than those affected by submergence and it has no estimate of theresource base of the oustees in their original village. Further the plan makes no estimation of the forest land,grazing land and resources being used by the oustees. The Master Plan persists with the discriminatory anddifferential policies which are less than just to the oustees. There is also no planning for community resettlementeven though the Award of the Narmada Tribunal made detailed provision regarding rehabilitation of the ousteeswhich required that there should be village wise community rehabilitation.164. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the following stipulation for rehabilitation contained in theAward of the Narmada Tribunal ‘That Gujarat shall establish rehabilitation villages in Gujarat in the irrigationcommand of the SSP on the norms hereafter mentioned for rehabilitation of the families who are willing to migrateto Gujarat’. The submission is that no specific rehabilitation village, as envisaged by the Tribunal’s Award, hasbeen established in Gujarat. The issue of community resettlement is stated to be not merely an issue of communityfacility but is a more fundamental issue. The issue is really one of preserving social fabric and community relationof the oustees which, it is alleged, is being destroyed due to dispersal of the community who are being resettled atdifferent sites.165. Dealing with the situation of those oustees who have been resettled in Gujarat it is established by the petitionerthat there are large number of grievances of the said oustees in 35 resettlement sites. With the passage of time thenumber of problems overall would become much more, is the contention. The petitioner finds fault with thequality of land which has been given in Gujarat to the oustees contending that large number of oustees have beengiven land outside the command area of irrigation and in some resettlement sites there is a serious water-loggingproblem. It also contends that though some amenities have been provided but they are not adequate. It is also thecase of the petitioner that sufficient land for resettlement of the oustees from Madhya Pradesh is not available inGujarat despite the claim of the State of Gujarat to the contrary.166. With regard to Maharashtra it is contended by the petitioner that the official figure of the total number ofPAFs affected in Maharashtra is not correct and the number is likely to be more than 3113 PAFs estimated by theState of Maharashtra. Furthermore adequate land of desired quality has not been made available for resettlementtill 90 m and even thereafter. Reference is made to the affidavit of the State of Maharashtra in which it is stated thatit proposes to ask for the release of 1500 hectares of forest land for resettlement and the submission on behalf ofthe petitioner is that release of such land shall be in violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and is not in publicinterest for forest cover will be further depleted.167. With regard to the State of Madhya Pradesh it is submitted that as per the award the PAFs have a right tochoose whether to go to Gujarat or to stay in the home State. The State of Madhya Pradesh is stated to haveplanned the whole resettlement based on the assumption that overwhelming proportion of oustees entitled to landwill go to Gujarat yet even for the limited number of oustees who are likely to stay in Madhya Pradesh thesubmission is that no land is available. The petitioner also disputes the averment of the State of Madhya Pradeshthat the oustees have been given a choice as to whether they would like to go to Gujarat or stay in the home State.According to the petitioner the majority of the oustees would prefer to stay in the home State that is MadhyaPradesh but sufficient land for their resettlement in Madhya Pradesh is not available. According to the petitionerthe State of Madhya Pradesh has stated that it does not have land for any PAFs above 830 and even for 830 PAFs35