GOMP has vide their GR dated 4.12.2001 granted additional liberalized rehabilitation package and financial assistance to the displaced families of Sardar Sarovar Project. Accordingly a displaced person from whom agricultural land has been acquired should be paid Special Rehabilitation Grant according to the formula provided therein. This is in addition to his entitlement of compensation etc. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It also further provides that if a PAF desires to have this special rehabilitation grant, he will be required to purchase irrigated land on his own from the amount paid to him and that he will n ot then demand for land from the Government. This is an additional benefit which is available to the PAFs by way of option and the said GR does not deprive any PAF of his primary right, if he really wanted land for land.
It is to be noted that the provision of sub-clause IV(7) of Clause XI of NWDT Award is as under:
"Every displaced family from whom more than 25% of its land holding is
acquired shall be entitled to and allotted irrigable land to the extent of land
acquired from it subject to the prescribed ceiling in the State concerned and
a maximum of 2 hectares (5 acres) per family, the irrigation facility being
provided by the State in whose territory the allotted land is situated. These
land shall be transferred to oustee family if it agrees to take it ........ "
The aforesaid provision implies that if the oustee is not interested in accepting the land allotted to him, he has to be contented with the compensation payable to him under the Land Acquisition Award for the land acquired and there is no further or any alternative benefit that he can claim. This apart, a PAF entitled to allotment of land has no choice but to take land offered to him by the Government and move to that location, as per above provision. It has to be appreciated and is found from experience that the PAFs who opt to be resettled in the home State may have their own preferences in choosing the place of resettlement due to social and economic reasons. Many of these PAFs would be still left with a part of their earlier land holding (upto 75%) and they would understandably prefer to be as near it as possible. This is made possible by GOMP's new provision.
It is pointed out here that under the NWDT Award, a person losing more than 25% of his land holding is entitled to a minimum of 2 hectares of land. Thus, there are PAFs from whom say 30%, 40% or more of their landholding has been acquired and they are still retaining their remaining 70%, or 60% etc as the case may be, of their previous holding, they may not like to leave the remaining land holding left with them and move to a new R&R site away from their existing homes where the Government offers them land. In such cases, it is natural for PAFs to opt for locating and purchasing land of their own choice which may be in the
vicinity, out of the aforesaid special rehabilitation package granted by the Madhya Pradesh Government.
Similarly there may be cases where the homesteads of the PAFs losing more than 25% of their land, do not come under submergence. Such PAFs would prefer to continue to stay at their old place of residence and purchase the land of their choice from the amount of special rehabilitation package given to them instead of migrating to the new site where the Government offers them agricultural land.
Thus, GOMP's liberalised policy is essentially an "oustee friendly" policy providing the PAF one more option over and above what he is entitled under the NWDT Award and also going a step further in extending benefits to him as not available in the scheme of the Award. It is further submitted that if any of the PAFs who have availed of the option of cash compensation have any grievance or complaint, it is open to them to approach the GRA. |
