A Mockery of Justice Delivery

Published on: December 29, 2015
and other things are required to establish new forms/sources of livelihood. In the same way potters claimed their right to allotment of land adjacent to the reservoir.
The villagers pointed out that, at the rehabilitated sites provided by government, there are no roads, no water supply or electricity and other facilities of schools, health centres and consequently the affected family are refusing to settle in these incomplete R&R sites. At one place where we had held our meeting a villager pointed out at two houses: on our right side the house will be under submergence and on the left side, the house is outside the submergence area, though they are on the same level and at the distance of 100 ft from each other! Note: (All activities of the visit on 11th September 2015 and proceedings of the Tribunal have been captured on video.).

Verdict of the People’s Tribunal
The People’s Tribunal has examined the findings of the Fact Finding Committee and has recorded its finding on the basis of evidence produced during visit of the villages of five Tehsils on September 11, 2015 and at the time of holding the sitting of the Tribunal at Rajghat. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the findings of the Fact Finding Committee stand corroborated by the Tribunal’s finding. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the actual ground situation and on the basis of the statements made by numerous project affected persons and oustees and landless persons and also further corroborated by the signed representations submitted to the Tribunal at the time of its hearing.
False Averments by State and Central Government to the Supreme Court
On the basis of the concurrent findings of the FF Team and the Independent People’s Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that "we are of the opinion that the claims of the Central Government and the Governments of Madhya Pradesh(MP), Maharashtra and Gujarat before the Supreme Court that the rehabilitation was fully or substantially completed - is false and the affidavit submitted to support the claim appears to have been prepared to support a false claim; the motive appears to be to create false evidence to obtain a favourable order from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have proved that on the date the impugned order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, R&R were incomplete in any real or material sense. Hence, the Governments concerned obtained an order for raising the construction height of the dam through this false representation and in gross violation of the Supreme Court direction that construction for raising the dam height can only be pari passu with rehabilitation measures."

It is in violation of this clearly laid down principle of the Supreme Court, that despite R&R of the PAFs affected under 121.92 meters height of the dam, or the R&R of those affected by the back water of MWL not being completed, the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) permitted height increase. There is further violation of the direction that the R&R sub-group would give clearance for further construction only after consulting the three GRAs and also violation of direction that “the three states must implement the award and given R&R to oustees in terms of packages offered by them and with the fully complied with directions of the NCA, GRA and Review Committee”.
Besides, there is further violation of the mandate (laid down in judgment 2005(4) SCC 32) to provide cultivable, irrigable, suitable land by offering ex-parte uncultivable/ encroached grazing land and unlawful introduction of the Special Rehabilitation Package (SRP) cash in lieu of land, violation of the mandatory pari passu preconditioned i.e. completion of R&R of all PAFs affected upto 138.68 meters, upto MWL 141.2 meters and BWL of MWL before undertaking construction beyond 121.92 meters and no submergence of any PAF till 6 months after completion of R&R and violation of recommendation of Over Sight Group. In addition to the aforesaid violation there is violation of PESA Act, 1996. Before R&R the Gram Sabhas were not consulted as per Section 4(1) of the Act of 1996.
In the light of the above gross