Medha Patkar's perjury in Supreme Court

Above: Medha Patkar's Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) banner with threats to Government officials

-------

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 2082 of 2011

Narmada Bachao Andolan ....Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. ....Respondents

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos.2083-2097 of 2011

State of Madhya Pradesh ....Appellant

Versus

Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. ...Respondent

AND

Civil Appeal Nos. 2098-2112 of 2011

Narmada Hydro-Development Corporation ...Appellant

Versus

Narmada Bachao Andolan & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 2115 of 2011

State of Madhya Pradesh ..Appellant

Versus

Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. ..Respondents

AND

Civil Appeal No. 2116 of 2011

Narmada Hydro Electric Development

Corporation Limited ..Appellant

Versus

Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. ..Respondents

Extracts from the Court Order

115. The appellants herein have raised an objection that the tenure holders of the said land are still in actual physical possession and they had never been evicted. However, on behalf of the respondent i.e. Narmada Bachao Andolan, Shri Alok Agrawal, Chief Activist of the organisation, has filed the counter affidavit dated 1.2.2010 before this Court, wherein it has specifically been mentioned as under:

(a) The acquired lands/properties of these 5 villages stood already vested in the State. The State is not competent to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings.

125. In the instant case, in view of the fact that land in dispute is an agricultural land and has 167 dwelling houses, law in fact requires taking over the actual physical possession. The respondent no. 1 has asserted that the tenure holders are not in possession of the said land. We considered it proper to appoint a Commissioner and to have his report. Thus, vide order dated 24.2.2011, this Court requested the District Judge, Indore to have an inspection of the lands in dispute in five villages and submit the report as who is in actual physical possession of the same.

126. In pursuance of our direction dated 24.2.2011, Shri M.K. Mudgal, learned District and Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) has submitted a detailed report after having conducted spot inspections and examining all the tenure holders in respect of the land in dispute in presence of Shri Alok Agrawal, Chief Activist of Narmada Bachao Andolan, (who remained present in this Court throughout the proceedings also and had been instructing the learned counsel for the said party) and recorded the following findings of fact:

(1) So far as the land in dispute in villages Dharadi, Guadi, Kothmir, Nayapura and Narsinghpura, having an area of 284.03 hectares is concerned, the original tenure holders are in actual physical possession;

(2) The Bhumiswamis (tenure holder) had sown the crops on the said land;

The report concludes as under:

"Therefore, on the spot inspection and the recorded evidence, there is no doubt in my mind to conclude that the standing crops have been sown by the former Bhumiswamis and the acquired lands of five villages in questions are actually in possession of the former Bhumiswamis even now. It has also got to be deduced further that N.V.D.A. has never been in possession of the aforesaid lands since the acquisitions of the same." (Emphasis added)

129. In view of the above, this becomes crystal clear that none of the tenure holders, so far the land in dispute is concerned, has been evicted / dispossessed. All the tenure holders are enjoying the said land without any interference. The tall claims made by the respondents before the High Court were totally false. The High Court was not justified in entertaining their applications in this regard, without verifying the factual aspects.

131. Before adverting to the next issue, it is desirable to deal with the conduct of the NBA. The question is not of justification of the tenure holders to retain possession of the land, rather it had emphatically been argued by Shri Sanjay Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the said applicant / respondent, that powers under Section 48 of the Act 1894 could not be resorted to because the tenure holders had already been physically dis-possessed and land stood vested in the State. Therefore, the same could not be divested. The matter was argued by Shri Sanjay Parekh at great length to impress upon the Court that the tenure holders had been actually dis-possessed long ago. This fact was denied by the State. It was only after considering the rival submissions on behalf of the parties that this Court thought it fit and appropriate to have a spot inspection report and then the District Judge, Indore, was asked to make a local inspection and submit the report. The report has been made after making an inspection of the area and recording statements of the tenure holders in presence of Shri Alok Agrawal, Chief activist of NBA and thus, we accept the same. It is evident from the said report that statements made by the said applicant / respondent in the Court, in this regard are factually incorrect and false. The Court has been entertaining this petition under the bona fide belief that NBA was espousing the grievance of inarticulate and illiterate poor farmers, with all sincerity and thus, would not make any misleading statement. However, our belief stands fully belied. Applicant / respondent made pleadings and advanced arguments without any basis only to secure unwarranted benefits to those tenure holders. In the instant case it stands discredited totally in the eyes of this Court. This Court had been a little careful and cautious in this regard, which has exposed the true picture.

132. In such a fact-situation, the NBA not having personal interest in the case, cannot claim to be dominus litis. Thus, it ought to have acted at every stage with full sense of responsibility and sincerity. Earlier also, this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 586, has disapproved the conduct of the Narmada Bachao Andolan and described it to be most unfortunate that it had celebrated the 4th anniversary of the stoppage of work of the dam under the interim orders of the Court. This Court found it to be an obstruction in the way of implementing the R & R Policy. However, at that time this Court was assured by the said NBA that they "shall not directly or indirectly give any cause for concern by this Court." But, in our opinion, it has not been able to keep its solemn undertaking given to this Court.

144. In such a case the person who suppresses the material facts from the court is guilty of Suppressio Veri and Suggestio Falsi i.e. suppression or failure to disclose what a party is bound to disclose, which may amount to fraud.

145. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the NBA has not acted with a sense of responsibility and so far succeeded in securing favourable orders by misleading the Court. Such conduct cannot be approved. However, in a PIL, the Court has to strike a balance between the interests of the parties. The Court has to take into consideration the pitiable condition of oustees, their poverty, inarticulateness, illiteracy, extent of backwardness, unawareness also. It is desirable that in future the Courts must view any presentation by the NBA with caution and care, insisting on proper pleadings, disclosure of full facts truly and fairly and in case it has any doubt, refuse to entertain the NBA. However, considering the interests of the oustees, it may be desirable that the Court may appoint an Amicus Curiae to present their cause, if such a contingency arises.

161. We have been given to understand that on the Narmada River, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, in all 29 major and minor projects are contemplated. Some of them have already been completed, but on account of stay order by the court/Authority some projects could not be completed. It is unfortunate that in spite of the fact that a huge amount has been spent, yet no one is able to reap the fruits of investment. The State should take immediate steps to get the final verdict in such cases or stay vacated and start the project at the earliest.

.............................J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)

.............................J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)

.............................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi

May 11, 2011

Complete Court Order at: Case Status of Supreme Court of India