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

India and the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan respectively under Section 5(3) ofthe Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. These references were heard by the Tribunal, which on 7 December1979 gave its final order. The same was published in the extraordinary Gazette by the Government of India on 12December 1979. In arriving at its final decision, the issues regarding allocation, height of dam, hydrology andother related issues came to be subjected to comprehensive and thorough examination by the Tribunal. Extensivestudies were done by the Irrigation Commission and Drought Research Unit of India and Meteorological Departmentin matters of catchment area of Narmada basin, major tributaries of Narmada basin, drainage area of Narmadabasin, climate, rainfall, variability of rainfall, arid and semi-arid zones and scarcity area of Gujarat. The perusal ofthe report shows that the Tribunal also took into consideration various technical literature before giving its Award.Award of the TribunalThe main parameters of the decision of the Tribunal were as under:a) Determination of the height of Sardar Sarovar Dam:The height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam was determined at FRL 455 ft. The Tribunal was of the view that the FRL+436 ft was required for irrigation use alone. In order to generate power throughout the year, it would be necessary toprovide all the live storage above MDDL for which an FRL of +453 ft with MDDL +362 ft would obtain gross capacityof 7.44 MAF. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that FRL of the Sardar Sarovar Dam should be +455 ft providinggross storage of 7.70 MAF. It directed the State of Gujarat to take up and complete the construction of the dam.b) Geological and seismological aspects of the dam site:The Tribunal accepted the recommendations of the Standing Committee under Central Water and Power Commissionthat there should be a seismic coefficient of 0.10 g for the dam.c) Relief and rehabilitation:The final Award contained directions regarding submergence, land acquisition and rehabilitation of the displacedpersons. The Award defined the meaning of the land, oustee and family. The Gujarat Government was to pay toMadhya Pradesh and Maharashtra all costs including compensation, charges, expenses incurred by them for andin respect of compulsory acquisition of land. Further, the Tribunal had provided for rehabilitation of oustees andcivic amenities to be provided to the oustees. The Award also provided that if the State of Gujarat was unable toresettle the oustees or the oustees were being unwilling to occupy the area offered by the States, then the ousteeswill be resettled by the home state and all expenses for this were to be borne by Gujarat. An important mandatoryprovision regarding rehabilitation was the one contained in Clause XI Sub-clause IV(6)(ii) which stated that nosubmergence of any area would take place unless the oustees were rehabilitated.d) Allocation of the Narmada waters:The Tribunal determined the utilisable quantum of water of the Narmada at Sardar Sarovar Dam site on the basisof 75 percent dependability at 28 MAF. It further ordered that out of utilisable quantum of Narmada water, theallocation between the States should be as under: Madhya Pradesh: 18.25 MAF, Gujarat: 9.00 MAF, Rajasthan:0.50 MAF and Maharashtra: 0.25 MAF.e) Period of non reviewability of certain award terms:The Award provided for the period of operation of certain clauses of the final order and decision of the Tribunal asbeing subject to review only after a period of 45 years from the date of the publication of the decision of theTribunal in the official gazette. What is important to note however is that the Tribunal’s decision contained inclause II relating to determination of 75 percent dependable flow as 28 MAF was non-reviewable. The Tribunaldecision of the determination of the utilisable quantum of Narmada water at Sardar Sarovar Dam site on the basisof 75 percent dependability at 28 MAF is not a clause which is included as a clause whose terms can be reviewedafter a period of 45 years.52. The Tribunal in its Award directed for the constitution of the inter-state administrative authority i.e. NarmadaControl Authority for the purpose of securing compliance with and implementation of the decision and directionsof the Tribunal. The Tribunal also directed for constitution of a Review Committee consisting of the Union Ministerfor Irrigation (now substituted by Union Minister for Water Resources) as its Chairperson and the Chief Ministersof Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan as its members. The Review Committee might review the5