# STATE OF HARYANA v. ~ STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2002-01-15
- **Case number:** Original Suit No. 6of1996
- **Bench:** G.B. Pattanaikand Mrs. Ruma Pal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-haryana-v-state-of-punjab-and-anr-18334
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956/Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966r
Sections 2(c), 1 I/Section 78-Bifurcation of erstwhile State of Punjab into
two Stales, Punjab and Haryana, in 1966-Notification in March 1976 by c
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 CanalProposal 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 D
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 E
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 withdrawnRepudiation 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 F
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 Punja{> 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 G
''"
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, H
227
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] I S.C.R.
A the waters of the rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were acquired for exclusive
use oflndia 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 ofRajasthan and the erstwhile State
of PEPSU. The share of the erstwhile State of Punjab was 5.90 MAF.
B
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
C water respectively. On the demand by the plaintiff-~tate, a Committee was
appointed by the Government oflndia 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
D 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
Bbakra 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
E proposed canal was alongside the Nangal Hydel Channel and Bhakra Main
Line Canal. The defendant-State agreed to the proposed canal. The plaintiffState 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 un

## Text

_Characters 0–39,817 of 115,345. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39817 for what follows._

STATE OF HARYANA
A
V.
~
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
)
JANUARY 15, 2002
B
[G.B. PATTANAIKAND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.]
Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956/Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966r
Sections 2(c), 1 I/Section 78-Bifurcation of erstwhile State of Punjab into
two Stales, Punjab and Haryana, in 1966-Notification in March 1976 by c
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 CanalProposal 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 D
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 E
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 withdrawnRepudiation 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 F
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 Punja{> 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 G
''"
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, H
227
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] I S.C.R.
A the waters of the rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were acquired for exclusive
use oflndia 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 ofRajasthan and the erstwhile State
of PEPSU. The share of the erstwhile State of Punjab was 5.90 MAF.
B
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
C water respectively. On the demand by the plaintiff-~tate, a Committee was
appointed by the Government oflndia 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
D 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
Bbakra 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
E proposed canal was alongside the Nangal Hydel Channel and Bhakra Main
Line Canal. The defendant-State agreed to the proposed canal. The plaintiffState 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
F 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
G 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
H India and the President of a political party. As per the settlement, the
)
STATE OF HARYANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
229
defendant-State agreed for completion of the construction of the SYL canal A
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 B
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 defendantState stopped the construction of the canal after completing nearly 90% of
the construction. The appellant-State again sought intervention of the
Government oflndia in February 1991. The Government oflndia directed the C
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
D
for issuance of a mandatory injunction to the defendant-State and/or the
Government oflndia to complete the construction of the canal in a time-bound E
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 oflndia has
failed to discharge its constitutional obligation in persuading th.e defendantF
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 G
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 H
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] I S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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 nondetermination of future utilisation of the additional waters by the Water
Tribunal, the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the agreement
D 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
E injunction for the completion of the canal in exercise of its discretionary power.
F
G
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.
Allowing the suit, the Court
HELD: I.I. The averments in the plaint and the relief sought for by the
plaintiff-State is not related to the use, distribution or control of the water
from Ravi-Beas Project. A reading the plaint of the plaintiff-State as a whole
shows that the dispute relates to the obligation on the part of the defendantState to complete the portion of SYL Canal within its territory which became
necessary for carrying the allocated water to the plaintiff-State under the
H provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and the agreement of
...
l
...
STATE OF HARYANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
231
December 1981. Such a dispute cannot be construed to be in any way A
interlinked with the distribution or control of water of or in any inter-State
river or river valley. (243-F-G-H)
1.2. As per the agreement of December 1981 between the two States,
the notification of March, 1976 stood modified to the extent varied under the B
agreement. It is thus apparent that so far as the plaintiff-State is concerned,
the earlier allocation of 3.5 MAF of water remained the same and it became
necessary to construct an'.>ther canal, almost parallel to the main canal, as
the existing canal system was not capable of carrying the allocated waters to
the plaintiff-State. (246-D-E]
1.3. The contention of the defendant-State that the Punjab Settlement
has no constitutional sanctity and not enforceable is unacceptable. As per the
Punjab Settlement, the Government of India referred only the dispute relating
c
to sharing of additional waters to a Water Tribunal under the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act and not the dispute relating to the construction of SYL Canal. D
This indicates that the construction of the SYL Canal has absolutely no
connection with the sharing of waters between the States and as such is not
a "Water Dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act. Hence even giving a wide meaning to the expression "water
dispute" in Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, the dispute
relating to the construction of the canal cannot be held to be a "water dispute" E
under Section 2(c) of the Act. Thus, the suit is not barred under Article 262
of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes
Act (248-F-G-H; 249-A-B-C)
State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [2000) 9 SCC p
572, relied on.
2.1. It appears that in the controversy between the two States, the
Government oflndia is feeling embarrassed to take any positive decision, which
is not in the interest of the nation. The founding fathers of the Constitution, G
advocated for a strong Central Government, so that there would not be any
disintegration of the States and the Central power would be able to keep the
States within its limits and will be able to force the States, in the matter of
good governance of the States, which would benefit the inhabitants of the
States, the inhabitants of the neighbouring States and the country as a whole.
1254-D-EJ H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2002] I S.C.R.
A
2.2. The importance of SYL canal for the plaintiff-State cannot be
overlooked. For construction of the canal in the territory of the defendantState, more than Rs. 560 crores have already been spent and the entire money
has been paid by the Government of India. It is indeed a matter of great concern
that while huge amount of public exchequer has been spent in the construction
B of the canal and only a few portion of the canal within the territory of the
defendant-State has not been dug, the canal is not being put to use on the
mere insistence of the defendant-State. The attitude of the defendant-State is
wholly unreasonable, dogmatic and is against the national interest. It is a
matter of the great concern that the Government of India is taking an
indifferent attitude in the matter and is only trying to while away the time,
C even though it continues to pay the defendant-State substantially, even for
maintenance ofsemi-constructed canal. (264-B-C-D]
2.3. A decree of the Court in either way is not as effective as the political
will of the authorities and the will of the people. But at the same time when
the political authority becomes dogmatic, unreasonable and indicates an
D attitude of irresponsible nature and when the Court finds that nothing is
moving even though there has been a large-scale drainage of public exchequer
and that the decision to have the canal had been reached on an agreement of
all concerned, representing the will of the people, the Court must pass
appropriate orders and directions. The political parties, which assume power,
E do whatever which catches the vote-bank. They forget that the Constitution
conceives of a Government to be manned by the representatives of the people,
who get themselves elected in an election. The decisions taken at the
governmental level should not be to be so easily nullified by a change of
government and by some other political party assuming power, particularly
when such a decision affects some other State and the interest of the nation
F as a whole. It cannot be disputed that so far as policy is concerned, a political
party assuming power is entitled to engraft the political philosophy behind
the party, since that must be held to be the will of the people. But in the matter
of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by
a previous government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not
G involve any political philosophy, the succeeding government must be held duty
bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop
to the same. (264-F-G-H; 265-A-B-C(
2.4. Considering the submissions of the defendant-State, there cannot
be any fetter on the power of this Court to issue appropriate directions. The
H defendant-State, having entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-State on
(
•
STATE OF HARYANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
233
the intervention of the Prime Minister of the country and which resulted in A
withdrawal of the pending suits in the Court, cannot be permitted to take a
contrary stand. It is the solemn duty of the Government of India to see that
the terms of the agreement are complied with in toto. More than Rs. 700
crores of public revenue cannot be allowed to be washed down the drain, when
the entire portion of the canal within the territory of the plaintiff-State has B
already been completed and major portion of the said canal within the territory
of defendant-State also has been dug. The apprehension of the defendant-State
that after digging of the canal, the plaintiff-State would draw more water than
that which is allocated is thoroughly unfounded since the source for drawing
of the water is only from the reservoir, which lies within the territory of
defendant-State and a drop of water will not flow into the canal unless the C
connecting gates are open. The quantity of allocated water in favour of the
plaintiff-State must be allowed to be drawn which can be done so if SYL canal
is completed since the existing Bhakara Main Line Canal has the capacity of
supplying ofonly 1.62 MAF of water. The plaintiff-State has made out a case
for issuance of an order of mandatory injunction against the defendant-State D
to complete the portion of the SYL Canal, which remains incomplete and in
the event the defendant-State fails to complete the same, then the defendantGovernment of India must see to its completion, so that the money that has
already been spent and the money which may further be spent could at least
be utilized by the countrymen. On examination of materials, the Court is
satisfied that the plaintiff-State has established the balance of convenience, E
irreparable loss and injury to it and hence entitled to the mandatory injunction
sought for. By way of a mandatory injunction, the defendant-State is directed
to complete the construction of the SYL Canal and make the canal functional
within one year. The defendant-Government of India is also directed to
discharge its constitutional obligation in implementation of the said direction F
in relation to digging of canal and if within a period of one year, the SYL
Canal is not completed by the defendant-State, then the Government of India
should get it done through its own agencies as expeditiously as possible, so
that the huge amount of money that has already been spent and that would yet
to be spent, will not be wasted and the plaintiff-State would be able to draw the G
full quantity of its allocated water. The direction to dig the SYL Canal should
not be construed by the plaintiff-State as a licence to permit them to draw
water in excess of the allocated water and in the event the Water Tribunal,
which is still considering the case of re-allotment of the water, grants any
excess water to the plaintiff-State of Haryana, then it may also consider issuing
appropriate directions as to how much of the water could be drawn through H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002) 1 S.C.R.
A SYL Canal (267-D-E-F-G-H; 268-A to E]
B
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Original Suit No. 6of1996.
(Under Article 131 of the Constitution of India)
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor
General, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, (AC) Vinod A. Bobde, Anoop Chaudhary, Ranjit
Kumar, (AC), Raju Ramachandran, M.J.S. Sethi, N.N. Goswmi, Surya Kant
Sharma, A.G. for Haryana State, M.C. Mehta, Petitioner-in-Person, in W.P. (C)
No. 4677/85, Pradeep Agarwal, (AC), S. Wasim A. Quadri, C.V. Subba Rao, K.
C C. Kaushik, Krishna Venugopal, Krishna Mahajan, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ajay
Sharma, Bipul Kumar, S.N. Terdol, S.K. Dwivedi, Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna
Prasad, Ms. Sushma Suri, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geetha
Luthra, K.B. Rohtagi, K.K. Lahiri, Ujjwal K. Jha, Raghavenclra S. Srivastava,
Ms. Shefali Shukla, Aslam Ahmed, Ejaz Maqbool, Ajay K. Agrawal, Y.P.
Singh, Chelan Sidharth, Devwrat Tiwari, Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri, H.K.
D Puri, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee, Anindita Gupta, Ranji
Thomas, Javed M. Rao, Sushi! Kumar Jain, R.C. Verma, Ms. Kiran Kapoor,
Mukesh Verma, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. for B.B. Singh, V.B. Saharya,
Pradeep Mishra, Ms. Indu Misra, H.S. Munjral, Ms. Kanwaljit Kochhar, Rajeev
Sharma, R.S. Suri, Anis Suhrawardy, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, D.K. Sinha,
E Debasis Mohan!, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, S.C. Birla, Vijay
Panjwani, Mahabir Singh, S.R. Sharma, Alka Agarwal, Dhruv Mehta for S.K,
Mehta, T. Mahipal, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Ms. Reena Singh, Girish Chandra,
Ashok K. Srivastava, Ms. Sheil Sethi, R.K. Maheshwari, Ms. Hemantika Wahi,
Ms. Naresh Bakshi, M.L. Lahoty, M.K.D. Namboodiri, Prashant Chaudhary,
Amit Singh, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Sanjay Hegde,
F S.N. Terdol, S.R. Sharma and Ajay Pal for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATTANAIK, J. The State ofHaryana has filed the present suit, under
G Article 131 of the Constitution of India, impleading the State of Punjab as
defendant No. 1 and the Union of India as defendant No.2, for the following
reliefs:
"(a) pass a decree declaring that the order dated March 24, 1976, the
Agreement of December 31, 1981 and the Settlement of July 24,
H
1985 are final and binding inter alia on the State of Punjab
STATE OF HARYANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [PATTANAIK, J.]
235
casting an obligation on Defendant No. 1 to immediately restart A
and comp,lete the portion of the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project
as also make it usable in all respects, not only under the aforesaid
order of 1976, Agreement of 1981 and Settlement of 1985 but also
pursuant to a contract established by conduct from 1976 till date;
(b) pass a decree of mandatory injunction compelling defendant No.
1 (failing which defendant No. 2 by or through any agency) to
discharge its/their obligations under the said Notification of 1976,
B
the Agreement of 1981 and the Settlement of 1985 and in any
case under contract established by conduct, by immediately
restarting and completing that portion of the Sutlej-Y amuna Link C
Canal Project in the State of Punjab and otherwise making it
suitable for use within a time bound manner as may be stipulated
by this Hon 'ble Court to enable the State of Haryana to receive
its share of the Ravi and Beas waters;
(c)
Award costs of the present suit to your plaintiff and against the
Defendant No. I; and
(d)
pass such other or further order or orders to such directions as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice."
It has been averred in the plaint that Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal is in fact,
D
E
the lifeline of the farmers of Haryana and the livelihood of the farmers
depends on the water, which is not only a natural resource, but a valuable
national asset and completion of the aforesaid Canal, would enable the State F
of Haryana to receive its share of waters of the rivers Ravi and Beas. The
plaintiff-State has averred that after the partition of India in 194 7, the emergence
of two independent countries-India and Pakistan, division of the waters of
rivers Indus and its tributaries became an international issue and in the year
1960, the Government of India signed a Treaty with Pakistan called the Indus G
Water Treaty of 1960. Under the aforesaid treaty, the waters of the three
Eastern rivers, namely the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi were acquired for
unrestricted use in India, to the exclusion of Pakistan and towards
consideration, the Government of India agreed to make a fixed contribution
of Pounds Sterling 62.06 million (equivalent to about 11 O Crores rupees) to
Pakistan. In a meeting of the beneficiary States namely, the State of Punjab, H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002) I S.C.R.
' A as it existed then, State of Kashmir, State of Rajasthan and State of PEPSU,
which meeting had been convened by the Govt. of India on 29th January,
1955, a workable agreement was arrived at for development and utilization of
the waters of Rivers Ravi and Beas and under the said agreement, the share
of undivided Punjab was 5.90 M.A.F. When there was a bifurcation of the
erstwhile State of Punjab into two separate States of Punjab and Haryana
B w.e.f. November 01, 1966 under Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966, special
provisions had been made with regard to the rights and liabilities of the
successor States in relation to the water from Bhakra Nangal Project and Beas
Project. Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, deals with such
rights and liabilities of the successor States. Dispute arose between the two
C States of Punjab and Haryana as to their respective share of water which had
earlier been allocated to the erstwhile State of Punjab and in the meeting
called by the Government of India, a decision was taken on ad hoc basis that
35% of water would go to Haryana and 65% for Punjab, pending finalisation
of the dispute. The State of Haryana approached the Government of India in
October, 1969, invoking its jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Punjab
D Reorganisation Act, 1966. A Committee was appointed by the Central
Government, which reported that Haryana would be entitled to 3.78 MAF.
Even the then Deputy Chairman of the Plannin!l Commission had examined
this question and had recommended that Haryana would get 3.74 MAF and
Punjab would get 3.26 MAF, while Delhi would get 0.20 MAF. A notification,
E ultimately was issued on 24th of March, 1976, allocating the surplus RaviBeas waters between the two states of Punjab and Haryana. Under this order,
3 .5 MAF had been allotted to the plaintiff-State. The State of Haryana, not
being a riparian State, the water allocated to it has to be drawn by digging
canal. By the existing arrangement for carrying waters of River Sutlej through
Bhakra Main Line Canal, it is not possible to draw water allocated to the State
F of Haryana under the Order of the Government of India dated 26th of March,
1976. The State of Haryana proposed that a link canal called the Sutlej Yamuna
Link Canal be constructed in the territories of the State of Pun jab and Haryana,
so that the State of Haryana could draw its allocated share of water. The
plaintiff-State has averred that the length of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal was 2 I 4
G kilometers out of which 122 kilometers is in the territory of Punjab and 92
kilometers is in the territory of Haryana. The alignment of the proposed canal
was alongside the Nangal Hyde! Channel and the Bhakra Main Line Canal.
The Chief Minister of Haryana had requested the Prime Minister of India by
his letter dated 23rd April, 1976 that the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal should be
completed by June, 1978. After several rounds of discussion, the two States
H had agreed upon the alignment of 30 kilometers of the SYL Canal adjoining
--{
STATE OF HARYANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [PATTANAIK, J.] 237
-
Haryana within the territory of Punjab and in fact the State of Punjab accepted A
~.
money for that purpose. The State of Punjab issued various notifications for
the acquisition of the land for the purposes of constructing the canal. The
":i.
State of Haryana, on its part started construction of the canal in its territory.
The Haryana portion of the canal stood completed in June, 1980 but the State
of Punjab adopted dilatory tactics on the construction of the canal on one B
pretext or the other. As the canal within the State of Punjab had not been
constructed, the State of Haryana filed a suit in the Supreme Court in the year
1979, being Suit No. 1 of 1979. The State of Punjab filed a suit in this Court
,.
under Article 131 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Orders
of Government of India dated 24th of March, 1976 and also challenged the
vires of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which was registered c
as Suit No. 2 of 1979. During the pendency of the aforesaid two suits, an
agreement was entered into between the States of Haryana, Punjab and
Rajasthan in tlie presence of the Prime Minister of India on 31st of December,
1981. Under the said agreement, the net surplus of Ravi Beas waters were
estimated at 17.17 MAF and that stood allotted as 4.22 MAF to Punjab, 3.50 D
MAF for Haryana, 8.60 MAF for Rajasthan, 0.20 MAF for Delhi Water Supply
and 0.65 MAF for Jammu and Kashmir. Clause (JV) of the said agreement
provided:
"Clause (IV): The Sutlej-Yamuna Canal Project shall be implemented
in a time bound manner so far as the canal and appurtenant works in E
the Punjab territory are concerned within a maximum period of two
years from the date signing of the Agreement so that Haryana is
enabled to draw its allocated share of waters. The canal capacity for
the purpose of design of the canal shall be mutually agreed upon
between Punjab and Haryana within 15 days, failing which it shall be
6500 cusecs, as recommended by former Chairman, Central Water F
Commission."
The said clause also provided that the suits filed by the State of Haryana and
State of Punjab should be withdrawn, without any reservations whatsoever
but subject to the terms of the agreement and accordingly both the State G
•
Governments applied for withdrawal of the suits. This Court allowed the suits
to be withdrawn by order dated 12th of February, 1982. The alignment of the
canal within the State of Punjab was proposed to be changed, to which the
State of Haryana also agreed. The State of Punjab started construction of
canal but the progress was rather slow. The State of Punjab also released a
white paper on 23rd of April, 1982, highly appreciating the agreement which H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] I S.C.R.
A had resulted in an increase of 1.32 MAF of the water to the share of Punjab.
--
On November 5, 1985, the Punjab Legislative Assembly passed a resolution,
...
repudiating the agreement of 31st December, 1981. On 24th of July, 1985, a
settlement was arrived at between the then Prime Minister of India and Late
z
Sant Harcharan Singh Longowal, the then President of Akali Dal, commonly
B
known as "Punjab Settlement", and the said settlement also contained an
express provision that the construction of the SYL Canal would be continued
and completed by 15th of August, 1986. In accordance with the terms of the
settlement, more particularly Clause 9.1, the issues relating to the usage, share
and allocation of the Ravi-Beas waters were referred to the adjudication of a
-~
Water Tribunal, under the Notification dated 2nd April, 1986. The tribunal
c submitted its Report to the Central Government on 30th of January, 1987 and
the tribunal also indicated in its report that the Punjab should complete its
portion ofSYL Canal expeditiously. In July, 1990, the construction of the canal
within the State of Punjab was completely stopped but by then, over 90% of
the construction had stood completed. Failure on the part of the State of
D
Punjab to construct the SYL Ca!lal within its territory, has prevented the State
of Haryana from utilizing the water allocated to its share. The plaintiff State
has further averred that more than Rs. 600 Crores have been spent on the
construction of the SYL Canal in Punjab territory, which is in addition to Rs.
250 Crores spent for the construction of the Canal within the Haryana territory.
Non-completion of the SYL Canal has debarred over three lac hectares of
E irrigation potential created in the State of Haryana and the said State is losing
agricultural production over eight lac tonnes per annum. According to the
plaintiff, if the canal would have been completed in 1983, as envisaged, then
the State of Haryana would have been in a position to produce an additional
·~
100 lac tonnes of food-grains, the value of which would work ou~ to Rs.5000
F
Crores. When the State of Punjab did not carry out the construction of the
SYL Canal, the State ofHaryana sought for intervention of the Union of India
and the Prime Minister of India convened a meeting on 20th of February, 1991.
In the said meeting, the Prime Minister directed that arrangements should be
made for the Border RDads Organisation to take- over the work in the minimum
time possible and the work should be dealt with on an emergency footing.
G At that point of time, there was no political government in the State of Punjab
and it was under the Presidents Rule. In July 1995, the State of Punjab
...
circulated a white paper, clearly expressing its intention not to proceed with
the work of the construction of SYL Canal and took a stand that Haryana's
share of the water should be delivered through the existing Bhakra Canal
H
System, which is an absolute impossibility. The plaintiff, thereafter filed the
present suit for the relief as already stated.
-(
STATE OF HARYANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [PATTANAIK, J.] 239
The Defendant No. 1, State of Punjab had filed its written statement, A
::i...
raising several preliminary objections. It is contended that the dispute clearly
'"
falls within the scope of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and
consequently the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is barred on a combined
reading of Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act and Article 262
of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the validity of the B
order dated 24th of March,. 1976 as well as agreement dated 31.12.1981 has
been challenged before the Ravi-Beas Water Tribunal and the report of the
said Tribunal has not become final inasmuch as the application filed by the
State of Punjab under Section 5(3) of the Act has not yet been disposed of.
~-
It has been further stated that the plaintiff State has no legal right to invoke
Article 131 of the Constitution and further the suit must be held to be barred c
by limitation. The further stand of the Defendant No. I is that the earlier suit
filed in the year 1979, having been withdrawn without leave of the Court, the
present suit is barred under Order 23 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure
as well as under Order 2 Rule XXXII of the Supreme Court Rules. According
to the Defendant No. I, no legal right can be said to have accrued to the State D
of Haryana under the Notification dated 24.3.1976 and further the agreement
dated 3 lst December, I 981 is invalid. It is also contended that the said
,.
agreement of 1981 stands superseded by the settlement of July 24, 1985.
According to the Defendant No. 1, the terms and conditions contained in
paragraph 9.3 of the Punjab Settlement was only a unilateral concession made
by Sant Harcharan Singh Longowal, and it was never intended to be a legal E
obligation, binding on the State of Punjab. The Defendant No. I admitted in
the written statement that the issues arising from paragraphs 9. I and 9 .2 of
the self-same Punjab Settlement were referred to the adjudication of the Ravi-
•
Beas Water Tribunal. But paragraph 9.3 had not been referred to any tribunal
and it was merely a concession given by said Harcharan Singh Longowal. The
F
Defendant No. 1 does not dispute the observations of the tribunal in its
Report dated 30th of January, 1987, relating to the aforesaid paragraph 9.3, but
contends that such observations were .in fact beyond the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal. According to the Defendant No. I, plaintiffs claim to have share
from Beas Project would not exceed 0.9 MAF and that quantity of water
would always be made available through the main Canal, which is in existence G
:...
and functioning. The said Defendant No. I also averred that the State of
Haryana is getting an additional water supply through River Yamuna under
the Agreement dated 12th of May, 1994, between the States of Uttar Pradesh,
Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there is no
need for the SYL Canal in any event. It has been further averred that Haryana
is already getting 1.62 MAF of water in Ravi-Beas waters through the existing H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2002) I S.C.R. •
A canal system of Bhakra Main Line/Narwana Branch and the present system
is fully capable of conveying the said quantity of water. Consequently, there
is no need for SYL Canal. The Defeqdant No. I further contends that in
Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, there has been no reference to
River Ravi and, therefore, question of conveying any water from River Ravi
B through SYL Canal does not arise. According to this defendant, the claim of
the State of Haryana, over and above the allocations made in the Beas Project
were neither legal nor proper and were only for extraneous considerations.
According to the State of Punjab, water of River Ravi do not find mention
in any scheme resulting from the Beas Project and, therefore, any order
containing allocation of Ravi water to the plaintiff State is invalid. The Defendant
C No. I has also averred that only the supplies from River Beas are being
transferred to Bhakra reservoir. According to the Defendant No. I, the allocation
of 3 .5 MAF to Haryana would deprive the State of Punjab of irrigation
facilities to lacs of acres of land, which are being irrigated in the State of
Punjab. So far as the issuance of a white paper is concerned, the Defendant
No. 1 has averred that the same was a political decision of the Chief Minister
D at that time and did not bind the State and at any rate, the subsequent
resolution of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, repudiating the earlier agreement
.clinches the matter. So far as the construction of SYL Canal already undertaken
in the State of Punjab is concerned, it has been averred that the State had
to undertake the same under duress and the said work was stopped because
E of turmoil in the State and when the militants killed a Chief Engineer and
Superintending Engineer. The defendant No. I admitted that there has been
an expenditure of Rs. 520 Crores on the construction of SYL Canal in Punjab
portion and further admitted that there has been a recurring expenditure on
establishment, which money the Government of India pays to the State of
Punjab. According to the Defendant No. I, no cause of action has accrued
F to the plaintiff to file the present ;uit, invoking Article 131 of the Constitution
and at no stage, the State of Punjab committed itself to the construction of
the SYL Canal.
The Defendant No. 2, Union of India in its written statement, took the
G stand that relief claimed by the plaintiff can be only against the State of
Punjab and there is no obligation on the part of the Government of India to
take up the construction work of SYL Canal. According to the defendant No.
2, the Union of India had already discharged its obligation by pursuing and
directing the Government of Punjab for early completion of Punjab portion of
the canal. It has been further averred that the Union of India had constituted
, H the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal, which gave its interim report on 30th of
~
I
..
STATE OF HARYANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [PATTANAIK, J.]
241
January, 1987 and the final report of the Tribunal is awaited. It has also been A
reiterated in the written statement that the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal in
its interim report had observed that this canal is the lifeline for the farmers
of Haryana and unless it is expeditiously completed, Haryana will not be in
a position to utilize the full quantum of water allocated to it. The said
defendant has also averred that the concept of a carrier for Haryana's share B
in surplus Ravi-Beas waters was envisaged in inter-State Agreement of 1981.
Further, the Central Government determined the rights and liabilities of the
successor States in accordance with Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation
Act, 1966 and allocated 3.5 MAF of surplus Ravi-Beas water to Haryana as
per Government of India Notification dated 24.3.1976. The said defendant has
stated in the written statement that the Union of India made its best efforts C
to settle the issue. On the question of amount of money, the defendant No.
2 has averred that the Union of India has provided Rs. 499.12 Crores to the
Government of Punjab till March, 1994 for completion of Punjab portion of
SYL Canal. It has also been stated that due to non-completion of SYL Canal
by Punjab, the State of Haryana is not able to utilize its full share of RaviBeas water. The Union Government has also stated that it is essential that D
Punjab portion of the SYL Canal is completed at the earliest.