http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA expenditure shall be shared by the Government of India and the Government of U.P. in the ratio of 60:40 and it was also decided that the Government of U.P. shall take over the direct responsibility for the entire rehabilitation task to be handled directly by its officers under the overall supervision and control of the Commissioner, Garhwal Division for which the State Government shall issue appropriate orders accordingly. Recommendations of the HRC, as accepted by the Government, have been produced before us. It is contended on behalf of the Government that though developmental programme are intended to benefit the citizens of the country but when displacement is on large scale it is the moral duty of the State to ensure that those who are being displaced are properly looked after. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan ’s case (supra) noticed that displacement of people living on the proposed project sites and the areas to be submerged is an important issue and a properly drafted relief and rehabilitation plan would improve the living standards of displaced persons after displacement. When clearances are given, conditions regarding preservation, conservation and rehabilitation are imposed and those conditions will have to be fulfilled by the authorities concerned to implement the project. When the Government in their concern in this regard had constituted HRC and HRC had made various recommendations, some of which have been accepted, as adverted to earlier, certain grievances are set up in an affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners on 4.9.1999 before this Court and our findings upon those grievances are as follows : 1. That HRC gives only 2 acres of land to each displaced family is not satisfactory. In case of Sardar Sarovar Project in Gujarat, it is contended that each family is getting 2 hectares of land as a minimum and there is no logic for discriminating against the project affected persons of the Tehri Project and such discrimination violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution to be treated as equal under the law. We do not think that it would be appropriate to hold that the extent of land recommended by HRC is inadequate or insufficient. Such recommendation has been made by HRC after due deliberation in the matter on the availability of the land in the region, the life style of the persons affected, their needs and other relevant factors in this regard. Above all, the project is being carried out in a hilly area where land is very scarce. In such circumstances, we do not think any comparison can be drawn between Sardar Sarovar Project and Tehri Project. Hence we reject this contention raised on behalf, of the petitioners. 2. Next recommendation in respect of which objection is raised is that the Government of India has chosen to treat as separate families sons and unmarried daughters who have attained the age of 21 years on the prescribed date. It is urged that 18 years should have been taken as the age for such classification and not 21 years. These matters are in the realm of decision of the recommendatory body and the Government. If the Government had chosen any other age, we could not have held it to be irrational. The contention that voting rights to citizens had been given even at the age of 18 years has no relevance to the facts under consideration. Therefore, this contention also does not deserve our intervention. 3. The next objection is raised in regard to major sons and unmarried daughters not being given land but only cash and is not acceptable as the same results in discrimination particularly once they have been recognised as separate families and such discrimination would be violative of their fundamental rights under the Constitution and it is contended that all major married sons should be given 2 hectares of land as a minimum and all the other benefits due to them as a displaced family under the package and they can be given the option of taking cash, equivalent to the value of 2 hectares of land in lieu of the land, if they so desire. This argument also cannot be accepted because as stated earlier on account of scarcity of land it may not be feasible to provide land to every family and even such Page 18 of 37