NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1360 of 2009.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:

(3.) Ms. Chittaroopa Palit, representative of the Appellant, has raised before us all the issues which had been agitated before the High Court, including the right of oustees for allotment of land in lieu of land acquired and non-compliance of R &R Policy is violative of fundamental rights of the oustees enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It has further been submitted by her that the amendment in Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy was null and void as it has not been carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as the provisions of Article 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India. Clause 5.1 of the R & R Policy could not be amended in violation of Rule 7(viii) of Part II of the Business Rules. And that since the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, has accorded clearance to the project with a clear understanding that landless labourers would also be allotted agricultural land and as the same has not been complied with, the High Courts judgment requires interference.