Why Registration Of Plots Allotted To Persons Affected By Sardar Sarovar Project Not Executed Yet? Madhya Pradesh HC Asks State

The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (January 15) asked the State to inform as to why registration of houses/plots allotted to the Sardar Sarovar affected persons has not been executed.For context, the Sardar Sarovar dam project on the Narmada river reportedly resulted in the displacement of many families in the area. A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Rusia passed the order while hearing a petition seeking direction to the respondents to complete the registration of the houses / plots allotted to the Sardar Sarovar affected persons in time bound manner without levying registration cost and stamp duty as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy for Narmada Projects."Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / State seeks time to take instructions and assist this Court on the next date of hearing as to why registration of houses / plots, allotted to the Sardar Sarovar affected persons has not been executed. Permission is granted. We further direct the counsel for respondent No.1 as to why registration has not been executed to the other allottees in addition to the petitioners herein," the court in its order said. During the hearing on Wednesday, activist Medha Patkar who appeared for petitioners submitted, “Lordship, this is public interest litigation on behalf of the four of at least 32000 families who are displaced by Sardar Sarovar Project since 1979 onwards. Since 1994, they were given the households and resettlement sites after orders of the Supreme Court but none of them have been given the house plot registry under Land Revenue Board and the order was passed on this as late as in August 2017 but still no one has been given registry. They have only been given allotment letter. This is the main issue. But there are issues related to house allotment also…”The court thus orally asked the respondents as to why it was not registering the house plots in the name of the affected persons/petitioners. At this stage, the respondents raised objections on the maintainability of the petition. He said, “My objections are that antecedents of petitioner is not there. Secondly, it's a private interest litigation because they have admitted in Paragraph No. 4 that we are the affected ones. Thirdly, grievance redressal authority is there...”The court inquired about who had filed the plea, to which the counsel for respondent answered said that it was filed by private individuals. However the Patkar interjected and said, “They are the displaced people who have given their affidavits…”The court said to the Patkar, “At least, you are not the interested party…we are telling something in your favour. Since you are not the interested party, instead of filing such petition in the name of others, you file it in your name itself.”To this Patkar responded, “Sir, my name is also there. I'm petitioner in person. All the other 4 petitioners have filed their affidavits.”Thereafter, Patkar referred to the affidavits filed and read out the respective affidavit.The court then said, “PIL can be filed by a person who is not an interested party. You are not interested party so instead of filing petition on behalf of others, its better you filed the petition under your name. Therefore, you can say that for these persons the allotment has been issued but no registry has been executed by the respondents. Instead of coming into this controversy whether this writ petition is maintainable or not maintainable, better you file petition under your name because you are not the interested party at all. You are taking the cause of the voiceless people therefore its better you withdraw this petition and file it in your name. That will serve the purpose.”Patkar then said, “In the same affidavit, it is said, I'm informed about the contents of the writ petition filed on behalf of me and all petitioners who are deprived of the house registries and some of house plots…which are true and correct as per my knowledge. The petition was translated and read out to me which I submit on oath is acceptable and truthful. I agree and permit Medha Patkar to plead the case as petitioner in person on behalf of me and others. And this has happened in many cases before the Hon'ble High Court Jabalpur and Supreme Court also.”To this court orally said that the State Government had established Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA) as well as appellate authority both for grievance of these persons."This grievance can be submitted. That can be decided by a retired High Court judge,” it added. However Patkar said that the number of families was very large and it included persons who are "labourers, potters, farmers etc cannot go to the authority as an individual". She said that many such petitions have already been pleaded and they had got many judgements of Supreme Court also where the petitioner had pleaded as petitioner in person.The court asked, “GRA cannot take a decision? Any application is...

Why Registration Of Plots Allotted To Persons Affected By Sardar Sarovar Project Not Executed Yet? Madhya Pradesh HC Asks State

Anukriti Mishra

Tags