- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Rajnish Vaish And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
These contempt petitions were filed alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 11 May 2011 in State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639. In that earlier matter the Court had upheld the State Government’s decision to abandon acquisition of 284.03 ha of land spread across five villages—Dharadi, Nayapura, Guwadi, Kothmir and Narsinghpura—on the premise that the Omkareshwar Dam would not cause permanent submergence and that any temporary submergence would be minimal and agriculturally beneficial. The 2011 judgment also noted that access roads should be established after “raising the height of the bandh as proposed by the authorities.”
The present petitioners contend that, save for building five or six bridges and minor elevation of road stretches near those bridges, the State did not raise the overall road level, resulting in heavy submergence during 2012-2013 and destruction of crops. After hearing counsel for both sides, the Supreme Court issued the instant order disposing of the contempt petitions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the 2011 Supreme Court judgment imposed a legal obligation on the State of Madhya Pradesh to raise the level of the access road sufficiently to act as a bandh (embankment) preventing all submergence of the five villages.
- If such an obligation existed, whether the State’s alleged failure amounts to wilful disobedience warranting contempt of court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 |
Directions regarding abandonment of land acquisition, treatment of temporary submergence, and provision of access roads after raising the height of the bandh. | The Court closely read the judgment to determine the exact scope of the State’s obligations. It concluded that the judgment required only the provision of reasonable access, not the creation of a permanent embankment preventing all submergence, and therefore found no contempt. |
| Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 32 |
Interpretation of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy and entitlements where land or dwellings face temporary submergence. | Referenced to reinforce that temporary submergence of agricultural land does not mandate acquisition, shaping the Court’s view that limited, periodic flooding was contemplated and acceptable under existing policy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook a textual analysis of its 2011 judgment, the Central Water Commission (CWC) report reproduced therein, and the findings listed in paragraph 179 of that decision. It emphasized that:
- Out of 284.03 ha, 281.75 ha lay between Full Reservoir Level (FRL) and Backwater Level (BWL) and was expected to undergo only temporary submergence.
- The 2011 judgment expressly found that such short-term submergence was agriculturally beneficial and did not necessitate land acquisition.
- The reference to “raising the height of the bandh” was made in the context of ensuring continued access to villages, not constructing a flood-prevention embankment.
Consequently, the Court held that the alleged non-construction of a high-level bandh did not violate any binding directive. The obligation, at most, was to secure access for villagers—an obligation the State is independently bound to meet. Absence of full embankment therefore could not ground a finding of wilful disobedience.
Holding and Implications
The contempt petitions were dismissed and closed.
Direct Effect: The respondents are not held liable for contempt, and no coercive orders issue against them. The matter ends without further directions.
Broader Implications: The order clarifies that compliance obligations arise only from the express terms of a judgment; implied or expansive readings will not ground contempt. No new legal precedent is created beyond this clarification.
Order
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present contempt petitions allege wilful disobedience of the respondents in respect of the directions of this Court in its judgment and order dated 11-5-2011 passed in State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639.
3. To understand the grievance raised in the present contempt petitions, paras 127 and 132 of the order of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 may be reproduced hereinbelow:
127. S/Shri R.S. Prasad and P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, have submitted that the High Court has committed an error by directing the rehabilitation of the occupants of the land in dispute in the said five villages, recording a wrong finding; that as the possession of the land had been taken by the Government the acquisition proceedings cannot be reversed. The land stood vested in the State; the land in dispute would stand submerged actually and, therefore, withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings was not permissible, though the land acquisition proceedings had not been completed and the actual physical possession of the land in dispute has not been taken. The persons/tenure-holders interested are still in possession of their respective lands. Therefore, the appellants have a right, not to acquire the land. Entries in the revenue records after mutation do not confer any title or interest in the property. The land in dispute would not be submerged even temporarily unless the flood situation occurs on backwater level. Therefore, the authorities had taken a decision on 2-4-2009 to abandon the land acquisition proceedings. The land in dispute would be waterlocked unless the height of the road is enhanced. However, considering the cost of rehabilitation as very high, the authorities have taken a decision to raise the level of the road to the extent that no part of the land in dispute would ever be submerged or waterlocked and people residing there or occupying the land would have access to the said land. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.
*
*
*
132. Therefore, the case of the State had been that the land in dispute measuring 284.03 ha would not be submerged temporarily or permanently, rather it may at the most become inaccessible at the time of the highest flood situation exceptionally and in case the level of the road is raised, it may work as an embankment and this land would not be submerged. Thus, on this premise, the authorities thought it proper to abandon the acquisition proceedings.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. It is on the basis of the above contents recorded in the said judgment (as underlined by us) that the petitioner in the present contempt petitions alleges that the respondents have failed to carry out their obligation of raising the height of the road to the requisite level so as to prevent submergence in the five villages in question, namely, (1) Dharadi, (2) Nayapura, (3) Guwadi, (4) Kothmir, and (5) Narsinghpura in the State of Madhya Pradesh which were involved in the writ petition in question.
5. The petitioner has further stated that apart from constructing five/six bridges and raising the level of the road in the immediate vicinity of the said bridges nothing further has been done in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 resulting in heavy submergence of the villages in the year 2012-2013 leading to a large-scale destruction of crops.
6. The issue involved in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 was the correctness of the Government's action in releasing the land measuring 284.03 ha covered by the five villages from the process of acquisition on the ground that the construction of the Omkareshwar Dam would not lead to submergence of the said villages and, therefore, to avoid wastage of public money it would not be necessary to go for the acquisition of the land.
7. To determine the issue, the Court had to constitute two fact-finding Committees to determine the question of possession of the land and also the level and extent of submergence. The first fact-finding enquiry was conducted by the jurisdictional District Judge who came up with a report stating that the landowners had continued to remain in possession. On the basis of the said report, the Court, therefore, understood that there would be no legal impediment to the process of deacquiring the land as undertaken by the State Government. Insofar as the level of submergence of the five villages in question is concerned, a report from the Central Water Commission (CWC) was called for and the details of the said report was exhaustively considered by this Court and has been extracted in para 170 of the judgment in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“170. In view of the serious controversy raised in these appeals, this Court vide order dated 24-2-2011 SLP (C) No. 31037 of 2008, requested CWC to make a local inspection and submit its report as to whether the land measuring 284.03 ha in these five villages, would be submerged temporarily or permanently or merely waterlocked. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, CWC after having spot inspection submitted its report dated 22-3-2011. The relevant part thereof reads as under:
(i) Village Kothmir:
‘115.53 ha area (under reference) of this village falls between FRL and BWL. This will come under temporary submergence when water level exceeds FRL (196.60 m).’
(ii) Village Narsinghpura:
‘Out of the total 21.58 ha area (under reference) of this village, 19.30 ha falls between FRL and BWL and will come under temporary submergence when water level is between FRL (196.60 m) and BWL.’
(iii) Village Dharadi:
‘The 103.09 ha area of the village (under reference) falls between FRL and BWL, which will come under temporary submergence when water level exceeds FRL (196.60 m).’
(iv) Village Nayapura:
‘The 33.83 ha land (under reference) of the village falls between FRL and BWL which will come under temporary submergence when water level exceeds FRL (196.60 m).’
(v) Village Guwadi:
‘The 10.00 ha land (under reference) of village falls between FRL and BWL, which will come under temporary submergence when water level exceeds FRL (196.60 m).’
(vi) Conclusion of the Committee: Out of the total land—subject-matter of dispute admeasuring 284.03 ha in the aforesaid five villages, 281.75 ha falls between FRL and BWL, which will come under temporary submergence due to backwater effect. The remaining 2.28 ha area will not come under submergence due to backwater levels when water levels are up to BWL.”
8. Thereafter this Court in para 178 proceeded to consider its earlier decision rendered in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 32 and came to the following findings: (Narmada Bachao Andolan case (2011) 7 SCC 639)
“179. If we read the abovereferred to provisions of the R&R Policy, findings in the NWDT award, project report prepared by CWC in March 1997 and observations made in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2005) 4 SCC 32 and analyse it properly, the following picture emerges:
(i) In case the land/dwelling unit of the tenure-holder is submerged temporarily, he is entitled for the benefit of the R&R Policy;
(ii) In case of temporary submergence of the agricultural land between FLR and MWL and those affected by the backwater effect resulting from MWL, only the buildings with their appurtenant land would be acquired. But the agricultural land is not to be acquired; and
(iii) In case, the dwelling units are acquired because of temporary submergence, such persons shall be entitled for the benefits under the R&R Policy.”
9. Thereafter in para 182, this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 recorded its opinion that the agricultural land of the five villages is no longer required to be kept under acquisition as the possibility of submergence is minimal and even in such a situation the period of submergence may be very short. Besides, such submergence is also beneficial to agriculture as the land gets enriched and becomes more fertile.
10. Finally, in para 185 this Court took the view that the decision of the State to abandon the land from acquisition in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be justified except that 167 dwelling units on the said land needs to be acquired and the inhabitants rehabilitated as per the R&R policy in force. However, in para 185 of the judgment in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639, the following observation has also been recorded by this Court:
“185. … The State shall establish the roads, etc. after raising the height of the bandh as proposed by the authorities.”
11. Reading the judgment of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 in its entirety and taking into account the report of the CWC, the findings of the Court as recorded in para 179 and the conclusions as recorded in para 182, we cannot subscribe to the view that in terms of the said order there was an obligation on the part of the State to raise the level of the road to an extent that the same would act as a Bandh to prevent any kind of submergence of the five villages in question. What was, at best, expressed by the Court is that access to the extent possible should be provided to the five villages as the land of the said five villages may remain under water even though for a limited period. It was specifically noted by this Court that such submergence for short periods is, in fact, beneficial to agriculture.
12. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention made on behalf of the contempt petitioner that under the Court's order in Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 any obligation was cast on the respondent to raise the height of the road so as to erect a Bandh to keep the five villages free from submergence at all times. At best, what was expressed is the necessity of providing access to the villagers to their lands which provision the State is even otherwise duty-bound to make and provide. The perceived violation on the part of the respondents to raise the level of the road, therefore, cannot make them liable in contempt. We, therefore, do not entertain the present contempt petitions any further and close the same in terms of the above.
Alert