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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

international border with Pakistan both in Gujarat and Rajasthan to encourage sturdy peasants tosettle in these border areas (later events have confirmed the imperative need for this); and5. All available water should be utilised to the maximum extent possible for irrigation and powergeneration and, when no irrigation is possible, for power generation. The quantity going waste tothe sea without doing irrigation or generating power should be kept to the unavoidable minimum.42. The Master Plan recommended by the Khosla Committee envisaged 12 major projects to be taken up inMadhya Pradesh and one, viz., Navagam in Gujarat. As far as Navagam Dam is concerned, the Committeerecommended as follows:1. The terminal dam should be located at Navagam,2. The optimum FRL of the Navagam worked out to RL 500 ft,3. The FSL (Full Supply Level) of the Navagam canal at off-take should be RL 300 ft,4. The installed capacity at the river bed power station and canal power station should be 1000 MW and 240MW respectively with one stand-by unit in each power station (in other words the total installed capacity atNavagam would be 1,400 MW).The benefits of the Navagam Dam as assessed by the Khosla Committee were as follows:(i) Irrigation of 15.80 lakh hectares (39.4 lakh acres) in Gujarat and 0.4 lakh hectares (1.00 lakh acres)in Rajasthan. In addition, the Narmada waters when fed into the existing Mahi canal system wouldrelease Mahi water to be diverted on higher contours enabling additional irrigation of 1.6 to 2.0 lakhhectares (4 to 5 lakh acres) approximately in Gujarat and 3.04 lakh hectares (7.5 lakh acres) in Rajasthan.(ii) Hydro-power generation of 951 MW at 60 percent LF in the mean year of development and 511 MWon ultimate development of irrigation in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.43. The Khosla Committee stressed an important point in favour of a high Navagam Dam, namely, additionalstorage. They emphasised that this additional storage will permit greater carryover capacity, increased powerproduction and assured optimum irrigation and flood control and would minimise the wastage of water to the sea.The Khosla Committee also observed that instead of higher Navagam Dam as proposed, if Harinphal or Jalsindhidams were raised to the same FRL as at Navagam, the submergence would continue to remain about the samebecause the cultivated and inhabited areas lie mostly above Harinphal while in the intervening 113 km (70 mile)gorge between Harinphal and Navagam, there was very little habitation or cultivated areas.44. The Khosla Committee report could not be implemented on account of disagreement among the States. On 6July 1968 the State of Gujarat made a complaint to the Government of India under Section 3 of the Inter-StateWater Disputes Act, 1956 stating that a water dispute had arisen between the State of Gujarat and the respondentStates of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra over the use, distribution and control of the waters of the inter-stateriver Narmada. The substance of the allegation was that executive action had been taken by Maharashtra andMadhya Pradesh which had prejudicially affected the State of Gujarat and its inhabitants. The State of Gujaratobjected to the proposal of the State of Madhya Pradesh to construct Maheshwar and Harinphal Dams over theriver Narmada in its lower reach and also to the agreement reached between the States of Madhya Pradesh andMaharashtra to jointly construct the Jalsindhi Dam over Narmada in its course between the two States. The mainreason for the objection was that if these projects were implemented, the same would prejudicially affect the rightsand interests of Gujarat State by compelling it to restrict the height of the dam at Navagam to FRL 210 ft or less.Reducing the height of the dam would mean the permanent detriment of irrigation and power benefits that wouldbe available to the inhabitants of Gujarat and this would also make it impossible for Gujarat to reclaim the desertarea in the Ranns of Kachchh. According to the State of Gujarat, the principal matters in disputes were as under:i. The right of the State of Gujarat to control and use the waters of the Narmada River on well-acceptedprinciples applicable to the use of waters of inter-State rivers;ii. The right of the State of Gujarat to object to the arrangement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and theState of Maharashtra for the development of Jalsindhi Dam;3
iii. The right of the State of Gujarat to raise the Navagam dam to an optimum height commensurate with theefficient use of Narmada waters including its control for providing requisite cushion for flood control; andiv. The consequential right of submergence of area in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra andareas in the Gujarat State.45. Acting under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, the Government of India constituted aTribunal headed by the Hon’ble Mr Justice V Ramaswamy, a retired Judge of this Court. On the same day, theGovernment made a reference of the water dispute to the Tribunal. The Reference being in the following terms:In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act,1956 (33 of 1956), the Central Government hereby refers to the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal foradjudication of the water dispute regarding the inter-state river, Narmada, and the river-valley thereof,emerging from letter No. MIP-5565/C-10527-K dated 6 July 1968, from Gujarat.46. On 16 October 1969, the Government of India made another reference of certain issues raised by the State ofRajasthan to the said tribunal.47. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a Demurrer before the Tribunal stating that the constitution of the Tribunaland reference to it were ultra vires of the Act. The Tribunal framed 24 issues which included the issues relating tothe Gujarat having a right to construct a high dam with FRL 530 ft and a canal with FSL 300 ft or thereabouts.Issues 1(a), 1(b), 1(A), 2, 3, and 19 were tried as preliminary issues of law and by its decision dated 23 February1972, the said issues were decided against the respondents herein. It was held that the Notification of the CentralGovernment dated 16 October 1969 referring the matters raised by the State of Rajasthan by its complaint wasultra vires of the Act but constitution of Tribunal and making a reference of the water dispute regarding the Inter-State river Narmada was not ultra vires of the Act and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute referredto it at the instance of State of Gujarat. It further held that the proposed construction of Navagam project involvingconsequent submergence of portions of territories of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh could form the subjectmatter of a water dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1956 Act. It also held that it had the jurisdictionto give appropriate direction to Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra to take steps by way of acquisition or otherwisefor making submerged land available to Gujarat in order to enable it to execute the Navagam Project and theTribunal had the jurisdiction to give consequent directions to Gujarat and other party States regarding payment ofcompensation to Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, for giving them a share in the beneficial use of Navagam dam,and for rehabilitation of displaced persons.48. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal on the preliminary issues, the States of Madhya Pradesh andRajasthan filed appeals by special leave to this Court and obtained a stay of the proceedings before the Tribunal toa limited extent. This Court directed that the proceedings before the Tribunal should be stayed but discovery,inspection and other miscellaneous proceedings before the Tribunal may go on. The State of Rajasthan was directedto participate in these interlocutory proceedings.49. It appears that on 31.7.1972, the Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan hadentered into an agreement to compromise the matters in dispute with the assistance of the Prime Minister of India.This led to a formal agreement dated 12 July 1974 being arrived at between the Chief Ministers of MadhyaPradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan and the Advisor of the Governor of Gujarat on a number of issues which theTribunal otherwise would have had to go into. The main features of the Agreement, as far as this case is concerned,were that the quantity of water in Narmada available for 75 percent of the year was to be assessed at 28 MAF andthe Tribunal in determining the disputes referred to it was to proceed on the basis of this assessment. The netavailable quantity of water for use in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat was to be regarded as 27.25 MAF which was tobe allocated between the States. The height of the Navagam Dam was to be fixed by the Tribunal after taking intoconsideration various contentions and submissions of the parties and it was agreed that the appeals filed in thisCourt by the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan would be withdrawn. It was also noted in this agreementthat ‘development of Narmada should no longer be delayed in the best regional and national interests’.50. After the withdrawal of the appeals by the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the Tribunal proceeded todecide the remaining issues between the parties.51. On 16 August 1978, the Tribunal declared its Award under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(4) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Thereafter, reference numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of 1978 were filed by the Union of4
Page 1 and 2: International EnvironmentalLaw Rese
Page 3: narrower gorge portion were taken i
Page 7 and 8: decisions of the Narmada Control Au
Page 9 and 10: 2. On the basis of examination of d
Page 11 and 12: of the project ordered and some of
Page 13 and 14: that this Court is really concerned
Page 15 and 16: These two areas have quite differen
Page 17 and 18: will reduce pressure on biodiversit
Page 19 and 20: xi.xii.National park and sanctuarie
Page 21 and 22: aspect, prevention of water logging
Page 23 and 24: COSTS NARMADA SAGAR SARDAR SAROVARD
Page 25 and 26: On 30 April 1987, a press note was
Page 27 and 28: During field season of every year t
Page 29 and 30: carried out and there is no reason
Page 31 and 32: In the case of Sardar Sarovar, wher
Page 33 and 34: 147. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned S
Page 35 and 36: of any activity (if pollution load
Page 37 and 38: the land is not available. It is al
Page 39 and 40: 180. The Award provides that every
Page 41 and 42: • Proper use of built-in-mechanis
Page 43 and 44: or group to be resettled. These wer
Page 45 and 46: petition and the petition was dispo
Page 47 and 48: the submergence villages, the triba
Page 49 and 50: v. At the time of allotment, the st
Page 51 and 52: • Afforestation was carried out i
Page 53 and 54: the land and house plots by the Gov
Page 55 and 56:
255. It is now well settled that th
Page 57 and 58:
exchange or due to outside compulsi
Page 59 and 60:
1. Construction of the dam will con
Page 61 and 62:
environmental mitigative measures o
Page 63 and 64:
environmental aspects will be pursu
Page 65 and 66:
These studies are considered specia
Page 67 and 68:
impounded in the reservoir the catc
Page 69 and 70:
26. It is necessary to provide for
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?