| Headnote |
Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956/Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966- Sections 2(c), 11/Section 78-Bifurcation of erstwhile State of Punjab into two Stales, Punjab and Haryana, in 1966-Notification in March 1976 by the Government of India allocating water to the plaintiff-State after an agreement with the State of Punjab-Haryana State unable to draw its allocated share of water through the existing Bhakra Main Line Canal- Proposal by the Haryana State for the construction of a new canal called Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal (SYL Canal) for full drawing of its allocated water-Agreement entered in with the State of Punjab for the construction of the canal-Construction of the canal completed in the territory of the Haryana State-Non-completion of the canal in the territory of the State of Punjab-Suit filed before the Supreme Court against the State of Punjab for early completion of the canal-Counter-suit filed by the State of Punjab challenging the notification of the Government of India of March 1976 and vires of the Act-Agreement in December 1981 between the States for completion of the canal within two years by the State of Punjab with the intervention by the Government of India and accordingly suits withdrawn- Repudiation of the agreement by the State of Punjab-Punjab settlement entered into between the then Prime Minister and President of a political party of the State of Punjab providing for early completion of the construction of the canal-Stoppage of construction by the State of Punjab after completion of 90% of the work-Suit by Haryana State seeking mandatory injunction to the State of Punjab for early completion of the canal-Maintainability of the suit under the Constitution-Held, the dispute is not a water dispute under the Act and hence the Supreme Court is not barred in exercising its jurisdiction-Mandatory injunction granted directing the State of Punjab for completion of the canal within one year-Constitution of India-Articles 131 and 262.After the partition of India, Government of India signed a Treaty with Government of Pakistan called the Indus Water Treaty. Under the Treaty, the waters of the rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were acquired for exclusive use of lndia for a fixed consideration. In 1955, an agreement was entered into for sharing of the waters of the rivers Ravi and Beas among the erstwhile State of Punjab, State of Kashmir, State of Rajasthan and the erstwhile State of PEPSU. The share of the erstwhile State of Punjab was 5.90 MAF.In 1966, the erstwhile State of Punjab was bifurcated into two separate States-Punjab and Haryana under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Due to differences between the two States regarding the sharing of water out of the allocation to the erstwhile State of Punjab, an ad-hoc decision was taken that the plaintiff-State and defendant-State would share 35% and 65% of the water respectively. On the demand by the plaintiff-State, a Committee was appointed by the Government of lndia to determine the water-sharing among the two States. The Committee recommended 3.782 MAF on water to the plaintiff-State.The Government of India issued a notification under Section 78 of the Act in March 1976 determining the share of water among the two States. The notification allocated 3.5 MAF of water to the plaintiff-State. However, the allocated water could not be drawn by the plaintiff-State with the existing Bhakra Main Line Canal. Hence, the plaintiff-State suggested construction of another link canal called the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (SYL Canal) in both the States for drawing its allocated share of water. The alignment of the proposed canal was alongside the Nangal Hydel Channel and Bhakra Main Line Canal. The defendant-State agreed to the proposed canal.The plaintiff-State started the construction of the canal in its territory in 1976 and completed the same in June 1980. The plaintiff-State filed a suit before this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution against the defendant-State for non completion of the SYL canal in its territory as per the agreement. The defendant-State also filed a counter-suit challenging the validity of the notification of March 1976 and the vires of Section 78 of the Act. During the pendency of the suits, an agreement was arrived at between the two States in December 1981 on the intervention of the Government of India. Under the agreement, besides allocation of water, the defendant-State agreed to complete the construction of the canal in its territory within two years. On the basis of the agreement, the two suits before this Court were withdrawn. In 1985, the defendant-State repudiated the agreement of December 1981. In July 1985, a settlement called the 'Punjab Settlement' was entered into between the then Prime Minister of India and the President of a political party. As per the settlement, the defendant-State agreed for completion of the construction of the SYL canal by 1986. The settlement also provided for the reference of the dispute relating to sharing of additional waters to a Water Tribunal. The terms and conditions of the settlement were incorporated by introducing Section 14 to the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956. Accordingly, the Government of India, by a notification, referred the dispute to a Water Tribunal. The tribunal, by its Interim Report in January 1987, observed that the defendant-State should complete its portion of the SYL canal expeditiously so that the plaintiff-State could utilise the full quantum of allocated water. In July 1990, the defendant-State stopped the construction of the canal after completing nearly 90% of the construction. The appellant-State again sought intervention of the Government of lndia in February 1991. The Government of lndia directed the Border Roads Organization to complete the construction of the canal within the minimum possible time. In July 1995, the defendant-State stopped the construction of the canal and took a stand that the share of water of the plaintiff-State would be delivered through the existing Bhakra Main Line Canal.The plaintiff-State filed the present suit seeking a decree declaring that the Notification of March 1976, the agreement of December 1981 and the Punjab Settlement of 1985 are final and binding on the defendant-State and for issuance of a mandatory injunction to the defendant-State and/or the Government of lndia to complete the construction of the canal in a time-bound manner.The plaintiff-State contended that the defendant-State cannot act hostile and refuse to complete the construction of the canal, which has been agreed to and most of the work undertaken on it; that the Government of lndia has failed to discharge its constitutional obligation in persuading the defendant-State to complete the canal; and that the non-completion of the canal would result in deprival of the fundamental rights enunciated under Article 21 of the Constitution.The defendant-State raising a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the suit of the plaintiff-State under Article 131 of the Constitution contended that the construction of the canal is linked to the allocation and distribution of water from Ravi-Beas Project and hence a 'water dispute' as per Section 2(c) of the Inter State Water Disputes Act; that as per Section 11 of the Act read with Article 262 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is barred in exercising its jurisdiction in the adjudication of inter-State water disputes; and that the averments made in the suit by the plaintiff-State indicate that there is a water dispute between the two States. The plaintiff-State, replying to the preliminary objection raised, contended that the dispute relating to the construction of the SYL Canal in the territory of the defendant-State is not a 'water dispute' under Section 2(c) of the Act and hence the Supreme Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution.The defendant-State, with regard to the main issue, contended that the construction of the SYL Canal is a highly sensitive political issue which resulted in great resentment by the farmers of the State, which was further aggravated by the Punjab Settlement; that the resentment ultimately culminated in serious law and order problem in the State; that the non-determination of future utilisation of the additional waters by the Water Tribunal, the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the agreement of December 1981, being political in nature, does not confer an enforceable legal right on the plaintiff-State; that the Punjab Settlement entered into between the then Prime Minister and the President of a political party has no constitutional sanctity to bind the defendant-State; and since no legal right has accrued to the plaintiff-State, the Court should not issue a mandatory injunction for the completion of the canal in exercise of its discretionary power. The defendant-Government of India submitted that the construction of SYL Canal is solely the responsibility of the defendant-State; that it had given all help including financial assistance to the defendant-State for early completion of the canal; and that it will negotiate for the early settlement of the dispute between the two States. |
