1 WP-6165-2021

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

WP-6165-2021
(RAMADHAR AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)

2
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-10-2021
Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioners.
This petition has been filed by a group of villagers claiming following
reliefs:

"(i) The Respondent No.3 may be directed to pass an award

under section 31 of the LA Act, 2013 and all rehabilitation

entitlements may be given to all affected families.

(ii) The Respondent No.2 may be directed to prepare a
"Development Plan" as per sec 41(4) of the LA Act, 2013 and provide
benefits to the affected scheduled tribe families.
(ii) The Respondent No.2 may be directed to acquire remaining
lands and houses of those oustees who are losing more than 50% of
their agricultural lands, if they so desire, in accordance with law after
providing compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement as per the LA
Act, 2013 as "displaced family".
(iv) The Respondent No.2 may be restrained from further

construction of the Aullia Medium Irrigation Project.

(v) Appropriate action may be taken against officials
responsible for illegal construction of Aullia Medium Irrigation
Project without Prior Environment Clearance.
(vi) The Respondent No.2 may be directed to dewater the lands
of oustees and restore status quo ante, whose lands have been
submerged without giving them their due entitlements or in lieu
appropriate damages may be given.
(vii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
interest of justice be passed."

Petitioners' contention at threshold is that in terms of Government

notification published by Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi on
Signature Not Verified
SAN

14.09.2006 it was mandatory for the State authority to have obtained

Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY
Date: 2021.10.28 12:25:07 IST
 2 WP-6165-2021

environment clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment

Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under category 'B' in the said schedule
before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project
management, is started on the project or activity. Referring to communication
sent by Engineer-in-Chief to the Member Secretary of State Environment

Impact Assessment Authority, on 12.09.2017, whereby all necessary

documents for obtaining prior environment clearance of Aulliya Medium
Irrigation Project were submitted, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that no land could have been acquired without obtaining
environment clearance. It is further submitted that villagers, who are
petitioners before this Court have vested interest in safeguarding their interest
and therefore have a right to file this writ petition and in support of this
contention petitioners have drawn attention of this Court to the
representations (Annexure P/9) so also the reference made by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (remaining), Tehsil Harsud, District Khandwa dated
02.09.2020 to submit that since construction work on the project has
commenced it be stopped and indulgence be shown by this Court as has
been done by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.6240/2021
wherein vide order dated 14.06.2021 hon'ble Coordinate Bench has noted as
under:

"Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioners are resident of village Pipliya Bhoju. The lands
have been acquired for the construction of Aullia Medium Irrigation
Project.
The grievance of the petitioners are that they have been denied
the rehabilitation under the scheme. It is further contended that the
dam project is a category of B Project and requires Prior Environment
Clearance as per notice dated 14.9.2006; however without following
the mandatory requirements, the construction of dam has continued.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within
Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY
Date: 2021.10.28 12:25:07 IST

Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY
Date: 2021.10.28 12:25:07 IST
3 WP-6165-2021
a week by ordinary as well as RAD mode, returnable within three
weeks."
Learned counsel for the petitioners when asked to demonstrate from
the pleadings that in compliance of the application which was furnished by the
Engineer-in-Chief of Water Resources Department addressed to the Member
Secretary of SEIAA no clearance has been given, then learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no documentary evidence on record to
demonstrate that clearance was either denied or was not extended in favour of
the Water Resources Department.
At this stage, Shri Shreyas Pandit submits that if he is required to
furnish a document pertaining to clearance then he be granted time.
This request of Shri Pandit deserves to be rejected inasmuch as while
drafting a petition wherein the main ground seeking indulgence of the Court is
that without obtaining environment clearance construction of dam has
commenced, it was for the petitioners to have been vigilant and should have
obtained necessary information and should have brought it on record to
substantiate their contention that construction work of dam is going ahead
without their being any environmental clearance from the competent
authority. In absence of any such material, when Annexure P/9 is perused,
which is in regard to grant of compensation/employment on account of
existence of wells/fruiting trees/solatium etc, it is evident that there is no
whisper in the representation in regard to project being commenced or
completed without their being environmental clearance.
As far as petitioners' contention that no land could have been acquired
without obtaining environmental clearance is concerned, notification,
Annexure P/1 dated 14.09.2006 in para 2 itself carves out an exception and it
is clearly mentioned that 'except for securing the land', project or activity,
cannot be initiated without securing the prior environmental clearance. Thus,
this ground as has been raised by the petitioners is also not made out from
the documents available on record and prima facie appears to be a petition
 4 WP-6165-2021
filed with some ulterior motives specially when some of the petitioners have
already filed a petition which has been registered as W.P. No.6240/2021 for
the same project and there is no justification for other set of persons to file
petition claiming same benefits specially when the competent authority has
already passed award dated 14.11.2018 which is available on record and there
exists a legal remedy for seeking reference, if any person is aggrieved of the
said award as has been passed by the competent authority.
Therefore, in my opinion, this petition is bereft of merits. No
development work can be allowed to be short circuited merely for the asking
of certain individuals specially when they have been provided with the remedy
under section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This provision
of law is complete in itself to take care of various grievances raised by the
petitioners. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE

VD

Signature Not Verified

SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY

Date: 2021.10.28 12:25:07 IST