Very important point
In the facts and circumstances of the case of State of Punjab and in the alternative Union of India were and are bound to construct and complete in time-bound manner, The Sultej Yamuna Link Canal Project in the Punjab Portion/Territory and State of Haryana is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction against them as per directions given in this judgment. The plaintiff suit is decreed under Article 131 of Constitution in the aforesaid terms.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Article 131—Suit by State of Haryana against State of Punjab and Union Govt. to compel them to construct and complete in time bound manner, the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project in the Punjab Territory—Maintainability of suit—Whether the dispute in the case in hand, can at all be held to be a water dispute as defined in 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Dispute Act? (No)—Is the suit maintainable under Article 131 of Constitution? (Yes).
       Held : Howsoever wide meaning the expression “water dispute” in Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act be given, the construction of the canal which is the subject matter of dispute in the present suit cannot be held to be a “water dispute’” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and as such, such a suit is not barred under Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. The aforesaid issue must be answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff State. (Para 8)
       (ii) Limitation for suit under Article 131 of Constitution—Suit by State of Haryana against State of Punjab and Union Govt.—Whether can be thrown away on ground of limitation or laches? (No).
       Held : In our considered opinion, the present suit cannot be thrown away, either on the ground of limitation or latches on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the Court, but we are not required to make an in-depth inquiry on the question of limitation, since the defendant- State of Punjab did not press the issue seriously. This issue accordingly is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1. (Para 11)
       (iii) Constitution of India—Article 131—Suit by State of Haryana against the State of Punjab and Union Govt. to construct and complete in time bound manner the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project in the Punjab Territory claiming relief of a decree and mandatory injunction—Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, defendant No. 1 (State of Punjab) and alternatively, defendant No. 2 (The Union of India) were and are bound to construct and complete in a time-bound manner, The Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project, in the Punjab Portion Territory and whether the plaintiff (State of Haryana) is entitled to the reliefs prayed for against the defendants? (Yes)—Plaintiff suit decreed (See paras 12 to 18)—Mandatory injunction granted—Result —Plaintiff suit decreed accordingly. (Paras 19 and 20)
       Held finally for relief of mandatory injunction :
       We have examined the materials from the stand point of existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury and we are satisfied that the plaintiff has been able to establish each one of the aforesaid criteria and as such is entitled to the injunction sought for. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. We, therefore, by way of a mandatory injunction, direct the defendant-State of Punjab to continue the digging of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal, portion of which has not been completed as yet and make the canal functional within one year from today. We also direct the Government of India - defendant No. 2 to discharge its constitutional obligation in implementation of the aforesaid direction in relation to the digging of canal and if within a period of one year the SYL Canal is not completed by the defendant-State of Punjab, then the Union Government 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 of Haryana would be able to draw the full quantity of water that has already been allotted to its share. Needless to mention, the direction to dig SYL Canal should not be construed by the State of Haryana as a license to permit them to draw water in excess of the water that has already been allotted and in the event the tribunal, which is still considering the case of re-allotment of the water, grants any excess water to the State of Haryana, then it may also consider issuing appropriate directions as to how much of the water could be drawn through the SYL Canal. (Para 20)
       The plaintiff’s suit is decreed on the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs. (Para 21)

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.—The State of Haryana has filed the present suit, under 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, 1985 are final and binding inter alia on the State of Punjab casting an obligation on Defendant No. 1 to immediately restart and complete 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, 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-Yamuna Link 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;

(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.”

2. It has been averred in the plaint that Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal is in fact, 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 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 1947, 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 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 110 Crores rupees) to Pakistan. In a meeting of the beneficiary States namely, the State of Punjab, 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 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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 55

Cases Referred (1)