North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, Shillong v. State of Assam

(Amitava Roy,J) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 passed in WP(C) No.23 4/2011 rejecting their prayer for a direction to the respondents therein to rele ase to them, the amount of Rs.2 crores paid by the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, Shillong (hereinafter for short referred to as the NEEPCO) to the S tate of Assam in exchange of the land in their occupation for setting up of a po wer project, the writ petitioner is in appeal. Initially, though the writ appel lant/writ petitioner endeavoured to have the original decision reviewed by Revie w Petition No.31/2007, it was negated by the order dated 16.12.2009. We have heard Mr. D.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the writ appellant/writ petiti oner, Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State Counsel for the official respondents and Mr. K.P. Sarma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H. Das, Advocate for NEEPCO (Respond ent No.6 & 7). Facts, in bare essential, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are that the writ appellant/writ petitioner is the General Secretary of the Land Affected Pe ople’s Committee espousing the cause of the villagers No.3 Bakulani Gaon, who at the relevant point of time were in occupation of land measuring 394 Bighas 4 Ka thas and were ousted therefrom. The habitation comprised of 41 households numbe ring nearly 100. According to the writ appellant/writ petitioner in exchange of the land, an amount of Rs.2 crores had been paid by the NEEPCO to the Govt. of Assam out of which a sum of Rs.102,500/- was released to the 41 families at the rate of Rs.2500/- per family, the amount being assessed by the Addl. Deputy Co mmissioner, Dibrugarh. It was in that backdrop, being highly dissatisfied about the meagerness of the a mount doled out to them by way of rehabilitation grant, the writ appellant/writ petitioner in a representative capacity approached this Court for judicial inter vention and redress. During the pendency of the appeal, in response to the query made by this Court, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh by his affidavit dated 15.06.2011 has b rought on record the fact that the land was a Government (VGR) land and that the same had been handed over to NEEPCO for setting up a power project in public in terest. In the above factual premise, Mr. Gogoi has urged that having regard to the amou nt paid by NEEPCO to the State Government for the land released to them, for the power project, the sum of Rs.102,500/- towards rehabilitation grant of 41 aff ected families is not only paltry but also unrealistic for all practical purpose s. As, it is the obligation of the State Government to release a reasonable and adequate amount for the purpose for which the same is defrayed, it is a fit cas e where an appropriate direction ought to be issued to it to enhance the amount of grant commensurate to the inconvenience and loss suffered by the 41 house hol ds by their summary ouster from the land in question. Whereas, Mr. Deka has submitted, on instructions, that the land involved being one reserved for village grazing and is thus a Government land and therefore the amount of Rs.102,500/- as a token sum of rehabilitation of the affected 41 fam ilies is adequate for all intents and purposes, Mr. Sarma has clarified that in fact, an amount of Rs.94,06181/- had been paid by NEEPCO towards the land out of which as assessed by the concerned district authority, a sum of Rs.102,500/- had been included as a rehabilitation grant. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leadings and other documents on record, we are of the view that even if no right as such in the members of the families ousted from the land in question can be recognized in law, the amount of Rs.102,500/- having regard to the purpose for w hich the same has been released to them can by no means be construed to be eith er realistic, reasonable or adequate therefor. On being queried by this Court, Mr. Deka has submitted that neither the State Go vernment has taken any other initiative for the rehabilitation of the 41 familie s nor the members thereof had applied to it seeking such a relief. Be that as it may, on a totality of the facts and circumstances available on rec ord, we are of the view that it is a fit case where a direction ought to be issu ed for suitable enhancement of the amount of the rehabilitation grant already re leased. It is a matter of record that the amount of Rs.102,500/- has been compu ted at the rate of 2500/- per family. It is submitted at the Bar that the land was handed over to NEEPCO on 25.09.1990. The materials on record do not provide the basis of fixing this rate. As observed hereinabove, according to us, even as on the date of the handing over of the land, the rehabilitation grant of Rs.2 500/- per family was wholly insufficient. Having regard to the sharp rise in the cost of living index judged by today’s context and also keeping in view that th e affected families by no means can be imputed with any negligence or inaction i n pursuing their claim due as in law, we are of the opinion that on a modest est imate each family as on date is entitled to the rehabilitation grant @ Rs.7,500/ - per family. Ordered accordingly. Having regard to the fact that there is a long time lag in between, for which, a s on date the composition of the families might have undergone radical changes, we consider it expedient to issue the following directions: Each of the affected families would identify its representative to prese (1) nt himself/herself before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, (2) After taking prior appointments from the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh such representatives would present themselves before him on 14.03.2012 at 11 A.M . so as to enable him to do the needful. (3) m would work out the amount to each family as above, (4) The amount would be disbursed within a period of three months herefrom. Needless to say the amount already paid would stand adjusted against the sum pa The Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh or any other authority detailed by hi yable as per this order. No costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Deka for the needful.