ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.1 SECTION X

Transcription

1 ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.1 SECTION X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22894/2005 (From the judgement and order dated 29/10/2005 in Misc.Appln. No.7124/2004 in PIL No.1287/2003 of The HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL) N.D.JAYAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INIDA & ORS. Respondent(s) [With prayer for interim relief and office report] WITH SLP(C) NO of 2005 [With Appln.(s) for directions, with prayer for interim relief and office report]; and WITH SLP(C) NO of 2005 [With appln.(s) for permission to bring L.R. Of the deceased petitioner on record and with prayer for interim relief and office report] Date: 23/01/2008 These Petitions were called on for hearing. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL For Petitioner(s) in SLP(C) 22894/05 Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. Mr.A.N.SIngh, Adv.

2 in SLP(C) 22895/05 Mr.Jitin Sahni, Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin M. Benjamin, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. in SLP(C) 26034/05 Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Adv. Mr.Virendra Rawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Dutta, ASG Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr.R.P.Pandey, Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER In the order dated , to redress the grievances of project affected persons, relating to Tehri Dam project, this Court had directed the appointment of a retired District Judge to look into the complaints and arrive at a fair settlement. As the petitioners had indicated that the dam site is in seismic prone area, this Court had also directed the State Government to take remedial steps in respect of

3 the report of the Geological Survey of India suggesting detailed studies based on hightech satellite imageries data and detailed ground surveys to identify the critical or potential unstable slopes above the reservoir rim, which will guide planning and implementation of preventive and corrective measures. Pursuant to the order of this Court, Shri Krishna Kumar, District Judge (Retd.) was appointed by the High Court of Uttaranchal to consider the various complaints filed by the project affected people. We are told that as many as 1911 applications were filed and out of them 166 applications have been disposed of and other applications are pending for consideration. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cut-off date for filing the applications was 15th November, 2007 and some of the affected persons were not aware of the date and as a consequence they could not submit their applications and so the date has to be extended further. We do not find any reason to extend the date for filing the applications. However, we make it clear that if any person is really affected and has got any genuine grievance he would be at liberty to submit the application showing sufficient cause for the delay and the District Judge would be at liberty to consider the application on merits and if it is a genuine grievance, and if sufficient cause is shown, he may condone the delay in filing such application and consider the same on merits. It is also submitted that the persons who have submitted their complaints are not informed about the disposal of their applications. In cases where applications have been disposed of, the disposals should be displayed on the notice board outside the project office and District Magistrate office and a copy of the order passed may be given to the applicant free of charge. The authorities should implement the orders made on grievance petitions/complaints, if not already implemented, at the earliest at least within a period of three months of the receipt of the orders. The applications not yet disposed of, are directed to be considered by the District Judge in accordance with the procedure adopted by him and disposed of expeditiously.

4 As regards the stability and structure of the dam, a Senior Geologist of the Geological Survey of India has filed a report stating that the villages situated on the slopes of the dam area were surveyed and further detailed study was required; that the stability of the slopes/areas located above the rim of the giant reservoir (Tehri dam) is of paramount importance and it needs to be continuously and meticulously monitored during the operation of the reservoir; and that GSI through its long term study programme would study the impacts on the slopes due to the draw down from the maximum level (El 815 m) achieved in the second season of reservoir filling and subsequent fillings (up to El 830 m) and would submit its report. The study may be continued. Necessary funds shall be made available to the GSI for such study. On the basis of the report submitted by such study team of GSI, the remedial action shall be taken by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the persons who are likely to be affected by the project are not rehabilitated. Such rehabilitation shall be considered after the report is submitted by the GSI study team. List after three months. (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma) ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION X

5 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22894/2005 (From the judgement and order dated 29/10/2005 in Misc.Appln. No.7124/2004 in PIL No.1287/2003 of The HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL) N.D.JAYAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INIDA & ORS. Respondent(s) [With prayer for interim relief and office report] WITH SLP(C) NO of 2005 [With Appln.(s) for directions, with prayer for interim relief and office report]; and AND WITH SLP(C) NO of 2005 [With appln.(s) for permission to bring L.R. Of the deceased petitioner on record and with prayer for interim relief and office report] Date: 24/04/2007 These Petitions were called on for hearing. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN For Petitioner(s) in SLP(C) 22894/05 Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. Mr.A.N.SIngh, Adv. Mr.Jitin Sahni, Adv.

6 in SLP(C) 22895/05 Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin M. Benjamin, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. in SLP(C) 26034/05 For Respondent(s) Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Adv. Mr.K.A.SIngh, Adv. Mr. B. Dutta, ASG Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr.R.P.Pandey, Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Adv. Mrs.Shobha Dikshit, Sr.Adv. Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This Court, on 6th February, 2007, had directed that the Superintending Engineer (Rehabilitation), Tehri Dam Project shall file a further affidavit by 25 th March, 2007, regarding the rehabilitation that has been done in respect of the persons likely to be affected by the Tehri Dam EL upto 840 mtrs. An affidavit has been filed in this regard on 24th March, 2007 by the Superintending Engineer (Rehabilitation), Tehri Dam Project wherein it is stated that all the families

7 who were entitled as per the previous survey as eligible for R&R package upto EL 835 have been provided, the details of which have already been furnished in a statement. In the accompanying chart regarding the progress of rehabilitation of Project Affected Families residing between RL 790 to RL 835 mtrs. it is mentioned that there are about 454 PAFs spread over 26 villages. According to the petitioners, there are more families affected when the RL reaches 835 mtrs. Learned Addl.Solicitor General for India, appearing for the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) submitted that the detailed survey is being conducted at the instance of Survey of India and if any family/families are staying In any remote part of the PAF, they would be relocated and rehabilitated within the shortest span of time. For the time being the rehabilitation works have been conducted by the District Magistrate, Tehri District, assisted by a Land Acquisition Officer. Going by the averments made by the petitioners, we find that there are series of minor complaints by the PAFs that they are not being paid reasonable compensation, and also not being paid money for relocating their families and there is also a complaint to the effect that these families are not being paid for the structures such grocery shop, cattle shed erected by them. These complaints could be looked into by the District Magistrate and to have a fair settlement of these complaints, we suggest that services of a retired District Judge can be made available so that he can work along with the District Magistrate and sort out all these complaints. The Chief Justice of the Uttaranchal High Court would suggest the name of a retired District Judge and also fix the honorarium and the same shall be communicaterd to the concerned District Magistrate and the THDC on or before 18th May, A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttaranchal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also raised a serious objection regarding safety of the dam in view of the report of the Geological Survey of India. Ld. Addl.Solicitor General has made available the latest report of the Geological Survey of India. The State Government will take all steps as suggested in paragraph 2 of the additional report of the Geological Survey of India to

8 the effect that "in the post- impoundment stage, the fluctuations in the reservoir level between EL 740.0m. and EL 830.0m (FRL) have direct bearing on the slope stability above the reservoir rim and this is the stage when detailed studies based on high-tech satellite imageries data and detailed ground surveys must be carried out to finally identify the critical or potential unstable slopes above the reservoir rim for making a detailed risk assessment report which will guide planning and implementation of preventive and corrective measures or even rehabilitation of population, as the case may be". The State Government will advert to this fact and take all remedial measures in this regard. Needless, the authorities will take all preventive measures to the PAFs as and when the water level is raised. List these matters in the 3rd week of August, (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma) ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22894/2005 (From the judgement and order dated 29/10/2005 in Misc.Appln. No.7124/2004 in PIL No.1287/2003 of The HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL) N.D.JAYAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INIDA & ORS. Respondent(s) [With prayer for interim relief and office report] WITH SLP(C) NO of 2005 [With Appln.(s) for directions, with prayer for interim relief and office report]; and SLP(C) NO of 2005 [With prayer for interim relief and office report] Date: 06/02/2007 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR For Petitioner(s) in SLP(C) 22894/05 in SLP(C) 22895/05 Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Mr. A.N. Singh, Adv. Mr. Jitin Sahni, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin M. Benjamin, Adv.

10 Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Adv. (N.P.) in SLP(C) 26034/05 Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Adv. Mr. Virendra Rawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Dutta, ASG Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. R.C. Kathia, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. SLP(C) 22894/05 etc.... (Contd.) Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Pursuant to order of this Court dated 08th August 2006, an affidavit has been filed on 01st September 2006 by Superintending Engineer (Rehabilitation), Tehri Dam Project, wherein it is submitted that there had been full rehabilitation for persons affected by the level upto RL 790 meter. Further progress is being made in respect of the persons likely to be affected by the level of 840 meter. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the rehabilitation in respect of persons affected by the level upto 790 meter is still not complete and the

11 evacuees have neither been given land or house nor have they been given any perquisites. The details of the rehabilitated persons have already been furnished. If the petitioners dispute these facts, they would be at liberty to file fresh response and also give the details of the persons who have not so far been rehabilitated. As regards the level upto 840 meter, it is submitted that in the ensuing months more persons are likely to be affected seriously. This rehabilitation process also should be completed by 31st March Superintending Engineer (Rehabilitation), Tehri Dam Project shall file further affidavit by 25th March 2007 regarding the rehabilitation that has been done in respect of the persons likely to be affected by the level upto 840 meter. The petitioners also would be at liberty to file the details of such persons who have not so far been rehabilitated. The other issues are left open to be decided. Post on 10th April (Subhash Chander) (Veera Verma)

12 ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22894/2005 (From the judgement and order dated 29/10/2005 in Misc.Appln.No. 7124/2004 in PIL No.1287/2003 of the HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL) N.D.JAYAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INIDA & ORS. (With prayer for interim relief and office report ) WITH S.L.P.(C) NO of 2005 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) NO of 2005 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Respondent(s) Date: 08/08/2006 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.

13 For Respondent(s) Mr. A.N. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Adv. Mr. Virendra Rawat, Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Adv. Mr. Vipin M. Benjamin, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Adv. Mr. B. Dutta, A.S.G. Mr. V.K. Uriyal, Sr.Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv. Mr. Swetank, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma, Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. R.N. Trivedi, Sr.Adv. Mrs.D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr.Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has brought to our notice an `Appeal' published in newspaper `Dainik Jagran' dated 4th August, 2006, regarding the rehabilitation of Tehri Dam project affected families. The said Appeal states that with the onset of monsoon 2006, there is a possibility of consequent increase in the water level of the Tehri Dam and it can go upto

14 790 m. It further states that the families affected by the rise of water level upto 790 m. have been given rehabilitation packages which have been accepted by them and such of the project affected families who have not accepted the facilities/payments may approach the concerned officer and receive the same. An appeal has been made to them to immediately shift to the new sites provided/safe places. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we direct the Union of India, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) and State of Uttaranchal to file, within two weeks, before this Court status report giving details of the project affected families by increase of water level from 760 m. to 790 m., those who have been offered the rehabilitation packages and received the same and those who have still to be provided with the rehabilitation packages. With reference to the order dated 5th December, 2005, it is sought to be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that large number of project affected families, on the water level rising upto 760 m., still remain to be rehabilitated. In this regard, reference is sought to be made to the material which was placed before the High Court and again before this Court and to the letter dated 20th December, 2005 addressed by counsel for the petitioner to counsel for the respondents. It is contended that despite the order dated 5th December, 2005 which directed the State Government to place before the concerned District Magistrate the individual grievance of those who had not been rehabilitated, nothing was done and no case was placed before the District Magistrate despite eight months having elapsed. We, however, feel that it would be expedient if we have on record the up-to date status of those who, according to the petitioners, have not been rehabilitated.

15 It is submitted that the petitioners can have a fresh survey conducted within a period of two weeks and place the result thereof before this Court giving village-wise particulars of those who have not been rehabilitated. Let that be done within the time stipulated. On a copy of the said status report being supplied to respondents, they shall have those cases examined expeditiously and file response thereto within two weeks thereafter. It would also be open to the petitioners to file a status report in respect of the families which may have been affected on the water level rising upto 790 m. and not having been rehabilitated. The authorities concerned shall examine the cases of the project affected families with the sensitivity it deserves since it is being submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the monitoring committee is hardly effective in granting/getting the rehabilitation packages to the illiterate villagers who are affected by the project. List the petitions in September, (N. Annapurna) (Khushi Ram)

16 ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.1 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22894/2005 (From the judgement and order dated 29/10/2005 in Misc.Appl.No.7124/2004 in PIL No.1287/2003 of The HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL) N.D.JAYAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INIDA & ORS. (With prayer for interim relief) With S.L.P. (C) No of 2005 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Respondent(s) Date: 05/12/2005 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN For Petitioner(s) In SLP 22894/2005: Mr. Sanjay Parikh,Adv. Mr. A.N. Singh,Adv.

17 In SLP 22895/2005: For Respondent(s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves,Sr.Adv. Mr. Vipin M. Benjamin,Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat,Adv. Mr. B. Datta,ASG. Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Gaurav K. Banerjee,AAG. Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv. Mr. P. Vinay Kumar,Adv. Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran,Adv. Mr. R.G. Padia,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Mishra,Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singh,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The main issues sought to be urged by the petitioners are: (1) rehabilitation of those who are affected by the water level rising up to the maximum of 760 meters; (2) rehabilitation when the water level goes to the maximum of 835 meters; (3) connectivity in respect of those villages likely to be affected even when the water is raised up to 760 meters; and (4) the compliance of conditions, subject to which environment clearance was granted. According to the impugned judgement, the petitioners did not dispute seriously about the rehabilitation of the oustees of the Tehri Dam up to the level of EL 760 meters and their main grievance related to rehabilitation of the persons who are displaced or are likely to be displaced from above the level of EL

18 760 meters. This is seriously disputed on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the petitioners have sought to refer to the record filed before the High Court showing the details of the villages and the persons who are oustees on the water level rising up to 760 meters but have not been rehabilitated as per the Scheme. Further question is about the forum which may examine the issues, if any, outside the rehabilitation Scheme. According to the impugned judgement, these issues could only be submitted before the Secretary, Ministry of Environment. For the proper examination of the matter and issue of directions, if any, it would be necessary for the petitioners to place the gist of their grievances in a brief synopsis with reference to the volume of the file and the page number and hand over the same to the counsel for the Union of India,Tehri Hydro Development Corporation as also to the counsel for the State of Uttaranchal within two weeks. The Union of India, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and the State of Uttaranchal may respond to it within two weeks thereafter. Insofar as individual grievance about those who, according to the petitioners, have not been rehabilitated having been affected by the water level below 760 meters is concerned, the State Government will have their cases looked into by the concerned District Magistrate and place before this Court the stand thereupon. List the petitions for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day in the month of January, In the meanwhile, steps be taken to serve the unserved respondents. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. [ T.I. Rajput ] [ V.P. Tyagi ]

19 ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.1 SECTION X SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).22894/2005 (From the judgement and order dated 29/10/2005 in PIL No. 1287/2003 & RA No. 7124/2004 of The HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL) N.D.JAYAL & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INIDA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report ) WITH SLP(C) NO of 2005 (With appln.(s) for directions and with prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO of 2005 (With appln.(s) for permission and with prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 15/05/2008 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Mr.A.N.SIngh, Adv. Mr.Jitin Sahni, Adv. Ms.Mamta Saxena, Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.

20 Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Adv. Mr.Virendra Rawat, Adv. Mr.Colin Gonsalves, Sr.Adv. Mr.Vipin M.Benjamin, Adv. Ms.Puja Sharma, Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.B.Dutta, ASG Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv. Ms.Rajni Ohri Lal, Adv. Mr.Jubair Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr.D.S.Mahra, Adv. For Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv Mr. V.K. Verma,Adv Mr. Vijay K. Jain,Adv Mr.Ajay Garg, Adv. Mr.Ravinder Kumar, Adv. Mr.C.P.Pandey, Adv. For Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the Project Affected families Mr.Sanjay Parekh submitted that in case the RL level goes upto 830 it is likely to submerge 25 villages and there is also a possibility of landslides and no steps have been taken to rehabilitate these persons. Whereas learned ASG appearing submitted that the rehabilitation process is on and the respondent State of Uttarakhand had already taken steps to

21 appeal to the central assistance. Now water level is m. and it is also submitted that last year during the present season the water level has gone only upto 817 m.. If there is possibility of any water level going upto 830 RL or nearby then urgent steps should be taken to rehabilitate the affected persons atleast before a period of six months of the FRL likely to reach 830. List after summer vacation. (G.V.Ramana) (Veera Verma)