# STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 2 S.C.R. 153
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-02-28
- **Bench:** R.M. Lodha, T.S. Thakur, Anil R. Dave
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-andhra-pradesh-v-state-of-maharashtra-ors-28859
- **Pages:** 62

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950:
A
B
Art. 131 of the Constitution read with 0. 23, rr. 1, 2 and 3 c
of the Supreme Court Rules - Suit by State of Andhra
Pradesh seeking to restrain the defendant State of
Maharashtra from constructing Babhali barrage on river
Godavari within the water spread area of Pochampad dam
and utilizing the water through the proposed barrage - Held:
0
Maharashtra can utilize waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new
projects, including any additional use over and above the
sanctioRed or cleared utilization, as the case may be - The
essence of Clause II (i) of the agreement is to put a cap on
the right of Maharashtra to utilize waters of Godavari river E
below the three dams mentioned therein up to Pochampad
dam site to the extent of 60 TMC for new projects and in no
case exceeding that limit - There is no demarcation made
that the utilization of waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new
projects by Maharashtra shall be from the flowing water -
State of Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed F
for in the suit - However, a three member supervisory
committee as detailed in the judgment is constituted - The
committee shall surprise the operation of Babhali barrage and
Balegaon barrage in terms of the judgment.
Art. 131 - suit for injunction filed by one State against
other State - Guiding factors to grant injunction - Explained
- Evidence - Burden of proof.
153
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013) 2 S.C.R.
A
Words and Phrases:
Expressions, 'dam', 'up to dam site', 'from the waters in
the area of Gadavari basin' and 'from the waters of Godavari
basin' - Connotation of.
B
The State of Andhra Pradesh filed the instant suit
against State of Maharashtra, defendant no. 1 mainly.
Union of India was impleaded as defendant no. 2 and
States of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and
Orissa were impleaded as defendants no. 3 to 6. It was
C the case of the plaintiff-State that pursuant to the
agreement dated 6.10.1975 between the two States and
the consequent award dated 27.11.1977 made by the
Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal (GWDT), the plaiantiff
completed Pochampad dam project on river Godavari
o near the border of State of Maharashtra; that the State of
Maharashtra was
illegally and
unauthorisedly
constructing Babhali barrage within the reservoir bridge
of Pochampad dam and its intention was to utilize the
water of Pochampad dam by invasion of reservoir water
E spread area by construction of Babhali barrage and
allowing its farmers to utilize water for irrigation by lifting
from Babhali pondage which would deprive the people
of the plaintiff State of having water for irrigation and
drinking purposes. The stand of defendant no. 1-State of
F Maharashtra was that by agreement dated 6.10.1975, it
was agreed that Maharashtra could utilize waters not
exceeding 60 TMC for new projects including any
additional use over and above the sanctioned utilization
in terms of the agreement dated 6.10.1975 from the water
in the area of Godavari basin below Paithan dam site and
G upto Pochampad dam site on Godavari. Out of the ten
issues framed in the suit, the parties felt that decision on
issues nos. 5,6,7 and 8 would be crucial. Taking these
issues together, the vital issue for consideration before
the Court was with regard to: "Maharashtra's entitlement
H to construct any project within the water spread area of
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Pochampad prqject."
Disposing of the suit, the Court
155
A
B
HELD: 1.1 During the pendency of earlier disputes
before the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, the riparian
states entered into bilateral and multi-lateral agreements
which were endorsed by the Tribunal in its Award dated
27.11.1979 and based its decision on these agreements.
The relevant agreements for the purpose of the instant
case are the agreements dated 06.10.1975 and 19.12.1975.
The Tribunal in Chapter IV of the award has noted that C
the entire area drained by the river and its tributaries is
calle

## Text

_Characters 0–39,988 of 119,624. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 153
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Original Suit No. 1 of 2006)
FEBRUARY 28, 2013.
[R.M. LODHA, T.S. THAKUR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
A
B
Art. 131 of the Constitution read with 0. 23, rr. 1, 2 and 3 c
of the Supreme Court Rules - Suit by State of Andhra
Pradesh seeking to restrain the defendant State of
Maharashtra from constructing Babhali barrage on river
Godavari within the water spread area of Pochampad dam
and utilizing the water through the proposed barrage - Held:
0
Maharashtra can utilize waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new
projects, including any additional use over and above the
sanctioRed or cleared utilization, as the case may be - The
essence of Clause II (i) of the agreement is to put a cap on
the right of Maharashtra to utilize waters of Godavari river E
below the three dams mentioned therein up to Pochampad
dam site to the extent of 60 TMC for new projects and in no
case exceeding that limit - There is no demarcation made
that the utilization of waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new
projects by Maharashtra shall be from the flowing water -
State of Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed F
for in the suit - However, a three member supervisory
committee as detailed in the judgment is constituted - The
committee shall surprise the operation of Babhali barrage and
Balegaon barrage in terms of the judgment.
Art. 131 - suit for injunction filed by one State against
other State - Guiding factors to grant injunction - Explained
- Evidence - Burden of proof.
153
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013) 2 S.C.R.
A
Words and Phrases:
Expressions, 'dam', 'up to dam site', 'from the waters in
the area of Gadavari basin' and 'from the waters of Godavari
basin' - Connotation of.
B
The State of Andhra Pradesh filed the instant suit
against State of Maharashtra, defendant no. 1 mainly.
Union of India was impleaded as defendant no. 2 and
States of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and
Orissa were impleaded as defendants no. 3 to 6. It was
C the case of the plaintiff-State that pursuant to the
agreement dated 6.10.1975 between the two States and
the consequent award dated 27.11.1977 made by the
Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal (GWDT), the plaiantiff
completed Pochampad dam project on river Godavari
o near the border of State of Maharashtra; that the State of
Maharashtra was
illegally and
unauthorisedly
constructing Babhali barrage within the reservoir bridge
of Pochampad dam and its intention was to utilize the
water of Pochampad dam by invasion of reservoir water
E spread area by construction of Babhali barrage and
allowing its farmers to utilize water for irrigation by lifting
from Babhali pondage which would deprive the people
of the plaintiff State of having water for irrigation and
drinking purposes. The stand of defendant no. 1-State of
F Maharashtra was that by agreement dated 6.10.1975, it
was agreed that Maharashtra could utilize waters not
exceeding 60 TMC for new projects including any
additional use over and above the sanctioned utilization
in terms of the agreement dated 6.10.1975 from the water
in the area of Godavari basin below Paithan dam site and
G upto Pochampad dam site on Godavari. Out of the ten
issues framed in the suit, the parties felt that decision on
issues nos. 5,6,7 and 8 would be crucial. Taking these
issues together, the vital issue for consideration before
the Court was with regard to: "Maharashtra's entitlement
H to construct any project within the water spread area of
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Pochampad prqject."
Disposing of the suit, the Court
155
A
B
HELD: 1.1 During the pendency of earlier disputes
before the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, the riparian
states entered into bilateral and multi-lateral agreements
which were endorsed by the Tribunal in its Award dated
27.11.1979 and based its decision on these agreements.
The relevant agreements for the purpose of the instant
case are the agreements dated 06.10.1975 and 19.12.1975.
The Tribunal in Chapter IV of the award has noted that C
the entire area drained by the river and its tributaries is
called river basin. The expressions "Godavari basin",
"Godavari river basin" and "Godavari drainage basin" in
.. the award have been explained to mean the entire area
drained by the Godavari river and its tributaries. From the o
award, it is clear that the Tribunal put its seal of approval
and endorsed the agreement dated 06.10.1975 between
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and the agreement
dated 19.12.1975 between Karnataka, Maharashtra,
Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh and
E
ordered that the allocation of waters in the Godavari river
and Godavari river basin between Maharashtra and
Andhra Pradesh and the clearance of projects for
utilization of waters of the Godavari and its tributaries
shall be observed and carried out as per the agreements.
[para 34, 35 and 41) [181-F-H; 182-A; 184-D-F]
F
1.2 The award dated 27 .11.1979 and the further award
dated 07 .07 .1980 leave no manner of doubt that the
Tribunal has determined the distribution of water in the
Godavari river on the basis of the agreements of the G
parties. While doing so, the Tribunal was alive to the
position that in deciding water disputes in inter-State river,
the rule of equitable distribution of the benefits of the river
applies so that each State gets a fair share of the water
of the common river but there is no rigid formula for the
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 2 S.C.R.
A equitable distribution of waters of a river because each
river system has its peculiarities. In terms of Clause I of
the agreement dated 06.10.1975, Maharashtra has been
given right to use for their beneficial use all waters up to
Paithan dam site on the Godavari, up to Siddheswar dam
8 site on the Purna. [para 45] [185-G-H; 186-A-B-E-F]
1.3 Clause fl of the agreement is in two parts. Clause
II (i) provides that 'from the waters in the area of the
Godavari basin' below Paithan dam site on the Godavari
and below Siddheswar dam site on the Purna and below
C Nizamsagar dam site on the Manjra and up to
Pochampad dam site on the Godavari, Maharashtra can
utilize waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new projects,
including any additional use over and above the
sanctioned or cleared utilization, as the case may be.
D Clause II (ii) enables Andhra Pradesh to build
Pochampad project with FRL+1091 feet and MWL+1093
feet. Andhra Pradesh under this Clause has been given
liberty to utilize all the balance waters up to Pochampad
dam site in any manner it chooses for its beneficial use.
E [para 46-47] [186-G-H; 187-A-B]
1.4 The words "from the waters in the area of
Godavari basin" in Clause ll(i) have two significant
expressions, one, 'Godavari basin' and the other, 'in the
F area or. The expression "Godavari basin" along with the
other two expressions "Godavari river basin" and
"Godavari drainage basin" in the award have been
explained to mean the entire area drained by the Godavari
river and its tributaries. By use of the words "from the
waters in the area of Godavari basin" in contradistinction
G to "from the waters of Godavari basin", the parties have
intended to mean waters in the geographical area of
Godavari basin and not confined to flowi.ng waters of
Godavari basin. If the intention of Andhra Pradesh was
that Maharashtra should not utilize the waters of
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
157
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Pochampad reservoir in its territory, such limitation A
would have been provided expressly. In the absence of
any express limitation, except quantity on the use of water
by Maharashtra within its territory in Clause ll(i) of the
agreement dated 6.10.1975, no other limitation can be
read. [para 48-49) [187-E-F; 188-B-F]
B
1.5 Moreover, apportionment of the Godavari river was
agreed to by the two States in a typical situation in as
much as building of Pochampad project by Andhra
Pradesh with FRL+1091 feet and MWL+1093 feet involved
submergence of certain areas in the State of Maharashtra. c
But for Maharashtra's consent to submergence of its area,
Andhra Pradesh could not have built Pochampad dam
with capacity of 112 TMC; rather its capacity would have
been limited to 40 TMC. Thus, in the absence of any
express clause, it cannot be said that Maharashtra was
D
given right to utilize waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new
projects from the flowing waters of the Godavari basin
.alone. On careful reading of Clause ll(ii), it is evident that
this Clause gives right to Andhra Pradesh to utilize all the
balance waters up to Pochampad dam site in any manner
E
it chooses for its beneficial use. The use of the expression,
"all the balance waters up to Pochampad dam site"
signifies that parties agreed that on utilization of waters
not exceeding 60 TMC for new projects by Maharashtra
from the waters in the geographical area of the Godavari
basin, all the balance waters up to Pochampad dam site
is left for utilization by Andhra Pradesh for its beneficial
use. [para 50) [188-G-H; 189-A-DJ
F
2.1 The common meaning of the word "dam" is the G
structure across the stream, including the abutment on
the sides. The dam is an obstruction to the natural flow
of the water of a river or a barrier to prevent the flowing
water. A dam is built across a water course to confine and
keep back flowing water. [para 51) [189-E]
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 2 S.C.R.
A
Morton v. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co. 87 P. 151, 153, 48
Or. 444; and Co/we/I v. May's Landing Water Power Co. 19
N.J. Eq. (4 C.E.Green) 245, 248 - referred to.
Indian Standard Glossary of Terms Relating To River
8 Valley Projects, Part 8; Dams and Dam Sections [First
Revision], paragraph 2.27; Glossary of Irrigation and HydroE/ectric Terms and Standard Notations used in India, Third
Edition, published by Central Board of Irrigation and
Power, "Introduction to dams", Publication No. 220 by
C Central Board of Irrigation and Power under the Chapter
"Dam Sites - Large Dams" - referred to.
2.2 It is sound principle of interpretation that if an
expression has been used in an agreement at more than
one place, such expression must bear the same meaning
D at all places unless expressed otherwise. When the
agreement dated 06.10.1975 is read carefully, it would be
seen that in Clause V, it is provided that Maharashtra and
Andhra Pradesh will be free to use additional quantity of
300 TMC of water each below Pochampad 'dam site' for
E new projects. The 'dam site' in the agreement has the
same meaning in all clauses and it means the concrete
structure of the dam. Therefore, Clause II (i) that provides
that Maharashtra can utilize waters not exceeding 60 TMC
for new projects from the waters in the area of the
F Godavari basin below three dam sites noted therein and
up to Pochampad dam site on the Godavari gives right
to Maharashtra to utilize waters of the Godavari river up
to Pochampad site which may be water flowing through
the river from the catchment area or the water spread area.
G Such utilization is not confined to the water flowing
through the river from the catchment area. The thrust of
the parties in Clause II (i) and the essence of this clause
is to put a cap on the right of Maharashtra to utilize waters
of Godavari river below the three dams mentioned therein
up to Pochampad dam site to the extent of 60 TMC for
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
159
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
new projects and in no case exceeding that limit. There
A
is no demarcation made that the utilization of waters not
exceeding 60 TMC for new projects by Maharashtra shall
be from the flowing water. While reaching the agreement,
the two States must have sought to equalize the burden
and benefits. [para 52 and 81 (i) and (ii)] [192-E-F, G-H; 193B
A-DJ
2.3 As a matter of fact, Andhra Pradesh understood
the location of Pochampad dam site at particular latitude
and longitude and not the reservoir. This also indicates
that by Pochampad dam site what is meant in the C
agreement dated 06.10.1975 is the structure and not the
spread area. [para 53] [193-E]
Orient Papers & Industries Ltd. and Another v. Tahsildarc u m-1 rrig a tion Officer and Others 1998 (1) Suppl. D
SCR 442 = 1998 (7) SCC 303 - held inapplicable.
2.4 In the instant case, the Court is concerned with
the interpretation of the words "up to dam site" occurring
in the agreement between the two states which was
entered into when the dispute was already pending
E
before the Tribunal and Andhra Pradesh was intending
to construct Pochampad dam with 112 TMC that would
submerge certain areas of Maharashtra. Therefore, these
words have to be understood in the context of the
agreement and terms thereof. In the overall context it is
F
very difficult to hold that dam site is given meaning in the
agreement as spread area of dam. [para 54.1) [194-E-G]
2.5 Generally, there cannot be a dam within a dam.
This is also true that generally there cannot be lake/ G
pondage of a project of one State within the lake/
pondage of the project of another state. But this Court is
concerned with specific water sharing agreement
between the two states which has been endorsed by the
Tribunal. Like any other agreement, the terms of interH
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A State agreement ordinarily must be found out from the
actual words employed therein. In Clause II (i), there is no
limitation imposed upon Maharashtra to utilize the waters
of the Godavari river from the water flowing through the
river from the catchment area only in its territory. What
8 Maharashtra has to ensure is that it does not utilize waters
of Godavari river in its territory exceeding 60 TMC for new
projects and it does not interfere with natural and
continuous flow of '!'later into Pochampad reservoir. [para
55] [195-A-E]
C
3.1 In a suit for injunction filed by one State against
the other State, the burden on the complaining State is
much greater than that generally required to be borne by
one seeking an injunction in a suit between private
parties. The complaining State has to establish that
D threatened invasion of rights is substantial and of a
serious magnitude. In the matter between States,
injunction would not follow because there is infraction of
some rights of the complaining State but a case of high
equity must be made out that moves the conscience of
E the Court in granting injunction. [para 58] [196-D-F]
State of Washington v. State of Oregon 297 US 517 -
referred to.
3.2 Maharashtra has suggested without prejudice to
F its rights and contentions that it is willing to reimburse
0.6 TMC of water to Andhra Pradesh by releasing the
same on 1st March every year. Maharashtra has
submitted that the operation of Babhali barrage can be
supervised by a committee consisting of representatives
G of Central Water Commission and of States of A1"1dhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra. This committee will supervise
that the gates are lowered on the 28th October each year
and will remain in operation till the end of June n~.xt year
and that on the 1st of March the gates will be lifted to allow
H the flow of water of 0.6 TMC to Andhra Pradesh. Thus,
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
161
MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
even 0.6 TMC will not be made use of by Maharashtra.
A
[para 62] [198-G-H; 199-A]
3.3 The commitment of Maharashtra that the Babhali
barrage project requires 2.74 TMC of water out of the
allocation of 60 TMC for new projects under the
8
agreement of which only 0.6 TMC is from the common
submergence of Pochampad reservoir and Babhali
barrage if accepted and its compliance is ensured, it may
be conveniently held that Babhali barrage would not
enable Maharashtra to draw and utilize 65 TMC of water C
from the storage of Pochampad project as alleged by
Andhra Pradesh. [para 81 (iii)] [211-E-F]
3.4 Even if the interpretation placed upon the
agreement dated 06.10.1975 by Andhra Pradesh is
accepted that utilization of waters to the extent of 60 TMC
D
for new projects by Maharashtra from below the three
dam sites mentioned in Clause ll(i) up to Pochampad dam
site can be only from water flowing through the river from
the catchment area and not from the pondage/wate·r
spread area of Pochampad dam, on the basis of facts
E
which have· come on record, a case of substantial injury
of a serious magnitude and high equity that moves the
conscience of the Court has not been made out by
Andhra Pradesh justifying grant of injunction. [para
81(iv)] [211-G-H; 212-A]
F
3.5 This Court, therefore, holds· that Andhra Pradesh
is not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for, in the suit. [para
82] [212-B]
3.6 However, a three member supervisory Committee
G
as detailed in the judgment is constituted. The Committee
shall SUf prise the operation of the Babhali barrage and
Balegaon barrage in terms of the judgment. [para 83]
[212-C-E]
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
A
Case Law Reference:
1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 442
held inapplicable para 26
87 P. 151, 153, 48 Or. 444 referred to
para 51.1
B
19 N.J. Eq. (4 C.E.Green)
referred to
para 51.2
245, 248
297 us 517
referred to
para 58
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Original Suit No. 1 of
c 2006
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
W.P. Nos. 134 of 2006, 210 & 207 of 2007.
D
Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 142 of 2009 in Orgnl. Suit No. 1 of 2006.
K. Parasaran, Altaf Ahmad, A.K. Ganguli, T.R.
Andhyarujina, Ravindar Rao, Krishnamurthi Swami, P. Venkat
Reddy, Anil Kumar Tandale, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
E Madhavan, Anindita Pujari (for LawYer's Knit & Co.), D.M.
Nargolkar, Soumik Ghosal, Amey Nargolkar, R.K. Rathore,
Rashmi Malhotra, D.S. Mahra, B.S. Banthia, Radha Shyam
Jena, Anitha Shenoy, V.N. Raghupathy, Naresh Kumar, C.K.
Sucharita, Rumi Chandar, Parekh & Co., Shakil Ahmed Syed,
F Asha Gopalan Nair, Guntur Prabhakar, D. Bharathi Reddy for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
R.M. LODHA, J.
H
Original Suit No. 1 of 2006
1. Two riparian states -Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
- of the inter-state Godavari river are principal parties in the
..,
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
163
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution of India read with
A
Order XXlll Rules 1,2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
The suit has been filed by Andhra Pradesh (Plaintiff)
complaining violations by Maharashtra (1st Defendant) of the
agreements dated 06.10.1975 and 19.12.1975 which were
endorsed in the report dated 27.11.1979 containing decision
B
and final order (hereafter to be referred as "award") and further
report dated 07.07.1980 (hereafter to be referred as "further
award) given by the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (for
short, 'Tribunal'). The violations alleged by Andhra Pradesh
against Maharashtra are in respect of construction of Babhali c
barrage into their reservoir/water spread area of Pochampad
project. The other four riparian states of the inter-state Godavari
river - Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa
have been impleaded as 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendant
respectively. Union of India is 2nd defendant in the suit.
0
2. The Godavari river is the largest river in Peninsular India
and the second largest in the Indian Union. It originates in the
Sahayadri hill ranges at an altitude of 3500 ft. near
Triambakeshwar in Nasik District of Maharashtra and flows for
a total length of about 1465 Km. (910 miles) through
E
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh before joining the Bay of ·
· Bengal. The river has its basin area spread into other States
like Karnataka, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. In
the high rainfall zone in Sahayadris, the river is joined by Darna
and Kadwa tributaries on its right and left banks respectively.
F
Downstream at a distance of 217 Km. (135 miles), the
combined waters of Pravara and Mula tributaries join the river.
About 45 Km. (28 miles) downstream of Pravara confluence,
Maharashtra constructed the Paithan Dam (Jaikwadi Project)
to utilize the flows available up to that site. Further downstream,
G
the river while in Maharashtra, receives waters of Sindphana,
Puma and Dudhna tributaries. At the border between
~
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, Godavari receives the
1
combin~d waters of Manjra (Manjira), Manar and Lendi rivers.
After it enters Andhra Pradesh, at a distance of 764 Km. (475 H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A miles) from its origin, Pochampad dam has been constructed
by Andhra Pradesh.
3. The river basin is divided into 12 sub-basins. The
subject matter of the present suit falls in G-1 and G-5 subB basins, details of which are as follows:
G-1 Upper Godavari:-This sub-basin includes the reach
of the river Godavari from its source to its confluence with
the Manjra. The sub-basin excludes the catchment areas
of the Pravara, the Puma and the Manjra but includes that
C
of all other tributaries which fall into the Godavari in this
reach.
G-2 Pravara:- This sub-basin includes the entire
catchment of the Pravara from the source to its confluence
0
with the Godavari including the catchment areas of the
Mula and other tributaries of the Pravara.
E
F
G
H
G-3 Puma:-This sub-basin includes the entire catchment
of the Puma and of all its tributaries.
G-4 Manjra:- This sub-basin includes the entire
catchment of the Manjra from its source to its confluence
with the Godavari including the catchment areas of the
Tima, the Karanja, the Haldi, the Lendi, the Manar and
other tributaries.
G-5 Middle Godavari:-This sub-basin comprises the river
Godavari from its confluence with the Manjra to its
confluence with the Pranhita. The sub-basin includes the
direct catchment of the Godavari in this reach as well as
of its tributaries, except the Maner and the Pranhita.
4. Rainfall during monsoon months (i.e. June to
September) is the major contribution to the Godavari river flows.
Monsoon contributes about 90% of river,flow. Non-monsoon
season contributes only about 10% of the flows which are not
-
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
165
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
well defined and well spread as that of South West monsoon.
A
5. On 10.04.1969, the 2nd defendant constituted the
Tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 (for
short, "1956 Act"). On the same day, disputes among the
riparian states regarding the inter-state Godavari river and the
B
river valley thereof were referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The Tribunal investigated the matters referred to it and made
its award on 27 .11.1979 setting out the facts as found by it and
giving its decision on the matters referred to it. The Tribunal
gave further award under Section 5(3) of the 1956 Act on
07.07.1980. The bilateral and other inter-state agreements
C
entered into by the riparian states during the period 1975 to
1980 for the distribution of water of Godavari river form the
· main features of the award.
6. The case of Andhra Pradesh in the plaint is that
D
construction of irrigation project to its full potential at
Pochampad, which is located close to the inter-state border of
. Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, involved submergence of
area within Maharashtra. On 06.10.1975, in the course of
pendency of disputes before the Tribunal, an agreement (which
E
was endorsed by the Tribunal) was entered into between
Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra whereby Maharashtra
agreed that Andhra Pradesh can go ahead with Pochampad
dam project. Acting on the agreement, Andhra Pradesh
constructed Pochampad dam on Godavari river at a distance
F
of 764 km. (from its origin) near Pochampad village in its
Nizamabad district. The dam is located by 5 km. upstream of
Soan Bridge on Hyderabad -
Nagpur Highway. The
Pochampad dam is 140 feet high masonry dam, forming a
reservoir with Full Reservoir Level (FRL) + 1091 feet and
G
Maximum Water Level (MWL)+1093 feet. The storage capacity
of the reservoir at FRL is 112 TMC and it has a water-spread
area of about 175 square miles at MWL extending into the
territory of Maharashtra. At FRL, the reservoir water spreads
upstream up to S39th km. of the Godavari river from its origin.
H.
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A A total length of 125 km of the Godavari river bed gets
submerged when the reservoir is at FRL +1091 feet. Out of the '
submerged river bed length of 125 km, the river bed to a length
of 55 km is located in the territory of Maharashtra. A length of
16 km of Manjira river bed before its confluence with river
B Godavari also gets submerged within its banks.
7. Andhra Pradesh has stated that an expenditure of about
Rs.2,700 crores has been incurred on Pochampad dam project.
The total irrigation potential under the Pochampad project is
about 16 lac acres and a total quantity of 196 TMC is proposed
C to be utilized under the project to cater to the needs of the
backward districts of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh is said to
have reimbursed Rs. 551.11 lacs to Maharashtra for
construction of five bridges at Siraskhod, Babhali, Chirli-Digras,
Balegaon, Belur across the Godavari river and two bridges
D across the Manjira river at Machnur (Nagani) and Yesgi and the
roads to provide proper transportation facilities connecting
villages on either sides of the Godavari and Manjira rivers.
8. The wrongs against which redress is sought are, first,
E Maharashtra's illegal and unauthorised act of construction of
Babhali barrage within the reservoir bridge of Pochampad dam
contrary to the award and without any right and entitlement; and,
second, Maharashtra's intention to utilize the water of
"'
Pochampad by invasion of reservoir water spread area by
F construction of Babhali barrage which would deprive Andhra
Pradesh in general and its inhabitants in particular in the
districts of Adilabad, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Warangal,
Nalgonda, Khammam and Medak of having water for irrigation
and drinking purposes and allow its farmers to utilize water for
G irrigation by lifting from Babhali pondage.
H
9. Andhra Pradesh complains that construction of Babhali
barrage will interfere with natural and continuous flow of water
by stopping the freshes into Pochampad reservoir resulting in
Pochampad project getting water only when. the Babhali-
-
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
167
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
barrage gets filled up and surpluses. According to Andhra
A
Pradesh, Babhali barrage is being built by Maharashtra with
storage capacity of 2.74 TMC. The necess!ty to file suit arose
since all the efforts made by Andhra Pradesh in stopping
construction of Babhali barrage by Maharashtra failed and
despite pendency of a writ petition before this Court in the
B
nature of Public Interest Litigation, Maharashtra continued with
construction of Babhali barrage.
10. Maharashtra has traversed the claim of Andhra
Pradesh. Although diverse preliminary objections have been
C
raised by Maharashtra in its written statement (which also came
to be amended) but these preliminary objections were not
pressed in the course of arguments and, therefore, we do not
think it necessary to refer to the preliminary objections.
Maharashtra has replied that by agreement dated 06.10.1975
between the two states, which was filed before the Tribunal
D
based on which award came to be passed, it was agreed that
Maharashtra can utilize waters not exceeding 60 TMC for new
projects including any additional use over and above the
sanctioned or cleared utilization on 06.10.1975 from the waters
in the area of the Godavari basin below Paithan dam site on
E
the Godavari, and below Siddheswar dam site on the Puma,
and below Nizamsagar dam site on the Manjira and up to
Pochampad dam site on Godavari. Maharashtra says that this
is an enbloc utilization permitted to it anywhere in the Godavari
basin between Paithan dam site, Siddheswar dam site,
F
Nizamsagar dam site and Pochampad dam site on the main
Godavari river. There is no restriction on any projects of
Maharashtra or where they are to be located .. The only
restriction is that Maharashtra cannot utilize more than 60 TMC.
There is also no mention or restraint on location of storages in
G
this stretch of the basin, number of storages and the sizes of
such storages which Maharashtra can construct to enable it to
utilize its share of 60 TMC for new projects to be sanctioned
or cleared after 06.10.1975.
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
A
11. Maharashtra asserts that it has not forfeited its right
to take its share of Godavari waters from any portion of its own
territory as it deems fit. The rights over its own land including
the submerged portion of its territory by Pochampad storage
continue to vest with it and not Andhra Pradesh. No lands have
B been acquired in Maharashtra for Pochampad storage by
Andhra Pradesh. Construction of projects for using its share of
water is its prerogative; the only cap is that the utilization should
not exceed 60 TMC.
12. Maharashtra has denied that the aggregate water
C utilisation by it is 63.018 TMC. It has asserted that aggregate
planned utilization of projects sanctioned after 06.10.1975 shall
be less than 60 TMC.
13. It is the case of Maharashtra that there is necessity to
D have storage reservoirs in the entire Godavari basin to harness
the river water not only in Telangana region but also in
Marathwada area of Maharashtra. According to Maharashtra,
Andhra Pradesh can conveniently harness the admitted
available flows by constructing storages and barrages below '·
E Sriramsagar to meet not only the reasonable needs of
Telangana region in the Godavari basin but also in the adjoining
Krishna basin.
14. Maharashtra has set out the features of Babhali
barrage and its need. Maharashtra says that Babhali barrage
F is located on the main Godavari river in Nanded district; 7.0
Kms. upstream of Maharashtra - Andhra Pradesh border. The
Pochampad dam on the Godavari river is 81 Kms. downstream
of Babhali barrage. Pochampad storage stretches to a
distance of 32 Kms. within Maharashtra territory and its
G submergence is contained within river banks in its territory
under static conditions. According to Maharashtra, there is
acute water need and no other alternate resource is available
in the vast area and population of Nanded district on both the
banks of Godavari over a stretch of 97 Kms. Lift irrigation
H
•
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
169
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
B
schemes had been constructed by it during 1972 to 1975 for
A
lifting water from the main Godavari river for drinking water and
some Rabi irrigation. There was no objection by Andhra
Pradesh to such schemes even though the water was extracted
from the submergence of the Pochampad project in
Maharashtra. After some time, difficulties were experienced in
getting the needed water supplies in the assured manner from
these lift irrigation schemes. There was acute agitation and
pressure from the local people of 58 villages to provide them
with a regulating scheme to get assured supply of water for
irrigation and drinking water according to their needs. To enable c
this requirement, it was decided in 1995 to create a small
pondage at Babhali to assure and regulate the needed
supplies. As Pochampad dam is 81 Kms. downstream of
Babhali barrage, the level of stored water at Pochampad
recedes completely away from 32 Kms. in Maharashtra territory
D
by about December. The gates of Babhali barrage are,
therefore, proposed to be kept open during monsoon period
·up to latter half of October as if there is no barrage and lowered
thereafter to create necessary small pondage in fair-weather
to meet the needs in Maharashtra out of the permitted share
of 60 TMC. The barrage crest level at Babhali is at river bed
E
level and there will be no obstructions to Godavari river flows
up to Pochampad dam during monsoon period. The small
pondage at Babhali having a capacity of 2.74 TMC for the use
during fair-weather is a negligible fraction of Pochampad
storage of 112 TMC out of which only 0.6 TMC is a common
storage. By the middle of December, Pochampad storage
recedes totally away from Maharashtra territory and, therefore,_
the pondage at Babhali during operation does not interfere with
F
the Pochampad storage of the Andhra Pradesh. Babhali
storage is a vital component for Maharashtra to use part of its
G
share of 60 TMC where it is most needed.
15. Andhra Pradesh filed rejoinder and denied diverse
facts and aspects stated by Maharashtra in its written
statement.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
16. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were
framed by this Court on 16.03.2007 which read as follows:
1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar
under Article 262 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 11 of the ISWD Act 1956?
2) Whether the Lis in the present suit is a 'water dispute'
involving merely the interpretation of the agreement dated
6.10.1975?
3) Whether the agreement dated 6.10.1975 has merged
into the award and become an integral part of the Award?
4) Whether there was no adjudication of disputes between
the two states by the GWDT in respect of the subject of
the agreement dated 6.10.1975, though the said
agreement was considered by the Tribunal and was made
part of the award?
5) Whether the action of State of Maharashtra in
undertaking and proceeding with the construction of
Babhali Barrage on River Godavari within the water spread
area of Pochampad reservoir and to utilize water from the
said reservoir is contrary to the GWDT award?
6) Whether the Godavari Disputes Tribunal award enables
the State of Maharashtra to construct Babhali Barrage
within the water spread area of Pochampad project or
utilize water upto the Pochampad dam site?
7) Is the State of Maharashtra entitled to put up its own
project in the project put up by the plaintiff and draw water
at all from River Godavari through that project?
8) Would the Babhali Barrage project proposed by
Maharashtra enable the said State to draw and utilize 65
TMC of water from the storage of Pochampad project?
H
9) In any event, whether in view of several disputed
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
171
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
questions of fact and of a te9hnical nature involved in the
A
suit, the dispute should be referred to a Tribunal
constituted under the Inter State River Water Disputes Act,
1956?
10) To what relief are the parties entitled?
17. Neither Andhra Pradesh nor Maharashtra desired to
lead oral evidence though series of documents were filed by
them. On 05.08.2008, the Court recorded that counsel on either
side had agreed that there would not be any oral evidence in
B
the suit. As both sides had filed series of documents, the Court
C
on that day observed that the parties may file a list of
documents on which they seek to place reliance and these
documents may be marked in the presence of Registrar
(Judicial).
D
18. Plaintiff initially produced as many as 59 documents.
Some of these documents are: geographical and hydrological
feature of Godavari river, inter-state agreement between Andhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra dated 06.10.1975, inter-state
agreement dated 19.12.197-5 among the Godavari riparian
E
states, copy of Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, list
F
of projects existing/cleared and contemplated projects showing
demand of 91.80 TMe by Maharashtra below Paithan, below
Siddheswar and below Nizamsagar put forth before Tribunal,
clearance of the Pochampad Project (Sri Ramasagar Project)
Stage-I by ewe, clearance of the Pochampad Project (Sri
Ramasagar Project) Stage-II by CWC, summary record of
discussions of the inter-state meeting between the two States
held on 11.07.2005 at ewe, minutes of the inter-state meeting
between the two States held on 05.10.2005 at ewe, summary
record of discussions of inter-state meeting between the Chief
G
Ministers of the two States convened by Minister, Water
Resources, Government of India on 04.04.2006, statement
showing the details of yearly/monthly reservoir levels of
Pochampad Project for the years 1995-96 to 2006-07, note
regarding Babhali and 10 other Barrages on Godavari river
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013) 2 S.C.R.
A submitted by Maharashtra during the inter-state meeting held
on 11.07.2005 at CWC, map showing the Godavari basin,
annual normal isohtetal map of Godavari basin furnished by the
Director, IMO, Pune dated 23.08.2007 addressed to Chief
Engineer, IS & WR, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the
B Statement showing details of monthly inflows 1983-84 to 200405.
19. On the other hand, Maharashtra initially tendered 23
documents, inter-alia, these documents are : copy of the
statements showing planned use of projects, sub-valley wise
C before 06.10.1975, copy of schematic diagram, copy of minutes
of meeting dated 21.09.2006 convened by ewe including letter
dated 16.6.2006 from Chief Minister of Maharashtra to Minister
of Water Resources, Government of India, detailed project
report of Babhali Barrage, actual utilization of the projects in
D (42+60) TMC area for past 12 years by Maharashtra produced
before ewe on 05.10.2005, materials showing existence of
lift irrigation schemes prior to 06.10.1975, schematic diagram
showing additional storage of Pochampad dam on account of
permission granted by Maharashtra to submergence in its
E territory [Ex. D-22] and map showing area demarcating the
controlling points as per Clause I of agreement dated
06.10.1975 allowing Maharashtra to use 60 TMC of water.
20. Both parties filed few documents thereafter. In the
affidavits filed by Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in respect
F of the admission and denial of documents some documents
tendered by either side have been admitted and some denied.
21. Learned senior counsel for the parties agreed that ·
issue nos. 5,6,7 and 8 are crucial issues and the fate of suit is
G dependant upon decision on these issues. It is appropriate that
the four issues are taken up together for consideration as these
issues are inter-connected.
Issue nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8
H
22. The vital question for consideration is Maharashtra's
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. STATE OF
173
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
entitlement to construct any project within the water spread area
A
of Pochampad project. The question must be answered in light
of the award and further award given by the Tribunal which in
turn depends on interpretation of the bilateral agreement
entered into between Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra on
06.10.1975.
B
23. Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel for Andhra
Pradesh extensively referred to diverse Clauses of the
agreement dated 06.10.1975, particularly, Clauses I, ll(i),ll(ii)
and V. He also referred to the award and submitted that the
award is a package and provides for all the reliefs to which the
C
parties were entitled. Maharashtra is not entitled to put up
Babhali barrage as the award exhausts all reliefs. He submitted
that Andhra Pradesh had conceded in favour of Maharashtra
a right to utilize entire yield to an extent of 241.5 TMC in the
high rainfall zone up to Paithan and Siddheswar dam sites
D
without any restraint taking into consideration that Maharashtra
had agreed to submersion of its land for Pochampad project.
To me~t the demand and requirement in the defined region
between Paithan· and. Pochampad projecii;, Me.\,ara,:;htra had
agreed to a cap on its utilization to 60 TMC in addition to
E
existing and sanctioned/cleared projects. The submergence in
Maharashtra by Pochampad project was agreed to by
Maharashtra subject to certain conditions like Andhra Pradesh
bearing cost of acquisition, rehabilitation of displaced families,
cost of roads and bridges but no rights were created in favour
F
of Maharashtra as a condition of submergence to waters within
Pochampad dam site. If Maharashtra had any right to water in
Pochampad storage within its territory it would have been so
recorded in the agreement but the silence in this regard leaves
no manner of doubt that Maharashtra has no right to water in
G
Pochampad storage.