Mandamus Cannot be Issued to Provide Amenities in Areas Governed by Compensation and Rehabilitation Policies

The petitioners, residents and farmers of Gram Panchayat Bamana, District Sagar, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a mandamus to compel the State to provide basic civic amenities (roads, drainage, toilets) and welfare schemes

They contended that despite the functioning of schools and Anganwadi centers, developmental funds were restricted

The State responded that Village Bamana was partially submerged due to the Pagra Dam project. Land acquisition awards were passed in 2015, compensation was paid, and a rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) policy was implemented with an allocation of Rs. 6.70 crores

The State argued that permanent development in a rehabilitation zone is untenable as it encourages residents to remain in a "danger zone"

1. Whether residents who have received land acquisition compensation and are covered under a rehabilitation policy have a legal right to demand permanent developmental works in an area identified for relocation.

2. Whether the petitioners possess the necessary locus standi to maintain a PIL for civic amenities in a submerged/danger zone after accepting compensation.

administrative recommendations are merely advisory and do not create enforceable legal rights over statutory R&R schemes

individuals seeking personal interests rather than general public interests cannot maintain such petitions

extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised to undermine public safety or statutory policies in the absence of documented legal rights or proven arbitrariness

Section 89 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, regarding financial regularities

The Court observed that since the petitioners had already accepted compensation under the 2015 Award, they lacked the locus standi to demand further permanent infrastructure in an area earmarked for evacuation

The Court reasoned that providing permanent civic amenities in a "danger zone" near a dam would be counter-productive; it would encourage villagers to remain in an unsafe area, thereby frustrating the R&R policy's goal of relocation to safer sites like Bhikampur

It characterized the petitioners' reliance on internal administrative recommendations for road works as legally insufficient to override the formal rehabilitation mandate

The Court concluded that the interest being agitated was a "personal interest of a limited group" who refused to vacate despite being compensated, rather than a genuine public interest

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to take a decision within three months regarding the "abolition or merger" of Gram Panchayat Bamana and to close all official activities of the said Panchayat in accordance with its relocation and rehabilitation status. All reliefs sought by the petitioners were denied.