RAVINDRA Vs. NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2015. The petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that land belonging to his father has been acquired which is coming under the submergence area of Sardar Sarowar Dam. He being a major son is aggrieved of not inclusion of his name in the list of Oustees. He was not given the benefit of Major Son as per NWDT (Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal) and also as per policy of Rehabilitation and Resettlement. The GRA has wrongly rejected his appeal whereas in case of others the major son has been treated as displaced person.

(2.) After notice the respondent appeared and has drawn the attention of this court towards the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (C) No.328/2202 dated 08-02-2017, which reads as under:-

(3.) Out of those, who had opted for the 'Special Rehabilitation Package', 386 families were extended the first installment only, and could not be favoured with the second installment. They are disputants before this Court. In addition to these disputants, there were 120 families, who did not accept any money whatsoever, and another 4 families which were in litigation with reference to the compensation payable. Calculated in terms of the figures, indicated hereinabove, 510 (386 + 120 + 4) 'project affected families', are still entitled to compensation, as they had not been extended full compensation. This position has been acknowledged by the Union of India (as also, the concerned State Governments).