- (1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) The present contempt petitions allege willful disobedience of the respondents in respect of the directions of this Court in its judgment and order dated 11th May, 2011 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.2083-97 of 2011 - State of Madhya Pradesh versus Narmada Bachao Andolan and another [(2011) 7 SCC 639].
(3.) To understand the grievance raised in the present Contempt Petitions, paragraphs 127 and 132 of the order of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan and another (supra) may be reproduced herein below: 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 5 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 back water 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 hectares would not be submerged temporarily or permanently, rather it may at the most become in-accessible 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." ;