1. Suit for mandatory injunction to compel completion of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal for allocated water share. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : Ruma Pal
State Of Haryana
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 6 of 1996
Date of Decision : 1/11/02
Advocates Appeared: Agarwal Ajay K. : Agnihotri S.K. : Agrawal Alka : Ahmed Aslam : Anand Pinki : Bakshi Naresh : Banerjee Ujjwal : Birla S.C. : Bobde Vinod A. : Chandra Girish : Chaudhary Prashant : Chhabra Jagjit Singh : Choudhary Anoop : Dwivedi S.K. : Goburdhan D.N. : Goswamy N.N. : Gupta Anindita : Hegde Sanjay : Jain Sushil Kumar : Jha Ujjwal Kumar : Kant Surya : Kapoor Kiran : Katiyar Anil : Kaushik K.C. : Kochhar Kanwaljit : Kulshrestha Sudhir : Kumar Bipul : Kumar Ranjit : Kumar Sakesh : Lahiri K.K. : Lahoty M.L. : Luthra Geetha : Mahajan Krishan : Maheshwari R.K. : Mahipal T. : Maqbool Ejaz : Mehta Dhruv : Mehta M.C. : Mehta S.K. : Mishra Pradeep : Misra Indu : Mohanty Lebasis : Munjral H.S. : Namboodiry M.K.D. : Pal Ajay : Panjwani Vijay : Prasad B.Krishna : Prasad Chandra Bhushan : Puri H.K. : Puri S.K. : Quadri A. : Ramachandran Raju : Rao C.V.Subba : Rao Javed M. : Rawal K.N. : Rohatgi K.B. : Rohtagi K.B. : Saharya V.B. : Salve Harish N. : Sethi M.J.S. : Sethi Sheil : Sharma Ajay : Sharma Naresh K. : Sharma Rajeev : Sharma S.R. : Shukla Shefali : Sidharth Chetan : Singh Amit : Singh B.B. : Singh Kumar Rajesh : Singh Mahabir : Singh Niranjana : Singh Reena : Singh Y.P. : Sinha D.K. : Srivastava Ashok K. : Srivastava Rachana : Srivastava Raghavendra : Srivastava Rajesh : Suhrawardy Anis : Suri R.S. : Suri Sushma : Terdal S.N. : Terdol S.N. : Thomas Ranji : Tiwari Dev Vrat : Venugopal K.K. : Verma Mukesh : Verma R.C. : Wasim S. : Watii Hemantika
Important Points
A dispute over the construction of a carrier canal for water already allocated by the Union Government is an implementation issue, not a 'water dispute' under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and thus does not oust the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Inter-State Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 131 and 262 - Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 - Sections 2(c) and 11 - Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - Section 78 - Dispute over construction of a link canal for water already allocated - Whether such dispute constitutes a "water dispute" under Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act - If the dispute centres on the obligation to construct a canal for the purpose of utilizing water already allotted, it cannot be construed as a dispute in relation to the use, distribution or control of the waters of an inter-state river - Such a dispute is not a "water dispute" and the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 131 is not ousted by Article 262 of the Constitution or Section 11 of the Act. (Paras 7 and 17)
(B) Inter-State Agreements - Obligations of successor States - Agreements entered into between States and the Union Government to implement a project in a time-bound manner create binding obligations - A succeeding government is duty-bound to continue the execution of a decision based on a consensus, and such obligations cannot be nullified by a change in government or political philosophy. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff State sought a mandatory injunction compelling the Defendant State to complete its portion of a link canal project. The water had been allocated to the Plaintiff State under a notification issued by the Union Government pursuant to a reorganisation act. Despite agreements and partial construction, the Defendant State stopped the work citing political turmoil and social resentment. The Union Government provided financial assistance but did not ensure completion, leading the Plaintiff State to approach the Court.
Findings of Court:
The suit is maintainable as the issue of canal construction is an implementation matter and not a "water dispute" as defined by law. The Defendant State is legally bound by previous agreements and notifications to complete the project. The Union Government has a constitutional obligation to ensure the implementation of such inter-state obligations, especially when significant public funds have already been expended.
Issues: Whether the construction of the link canal is a "water dispute" under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, that would bar the jurisdiction of the Court, and whether the Defendant State and Union Government are bound to complete the project in a time-bound manner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the water allocation was already determined by the Union Government, the dispute over the carrier (canal) is distinct from the dispute over water sharing. Consequently, the bar under Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act does not apply. Furthermore, inter-state agreements and the principle of cooperative federalism necessitate that a State cannot renege on its commitments based on political shifts.
Result: Suit decreed. Mandatory injunction issued to the Defendant State to make the canal functional within one year, failing which the Union Government is directed to complete the work through its own agencies.
(B) Inter-State Agreements - Obligations of successor States - Agreements entered into between States and the Union Government to implement a project in a time-bound manner create binding obligations - A succeeding government is duty-bound to continue the execution of a decision based on a consensus, and such obligations cannot be nullified by a change in government or political philosophy. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff State sought a mandatory injunction compelling the Defendant State to complete its portion of a link canal project. The water had been allocated to the Plaintiff State under a notification issued by the Union Government pursuant to a reorganisation act. Despite agreements and partial construction, the Defendant State stopped the work citing political turmoil and social resentment. The Union Government provided financial assistance but did not ensure completion, leading the Plaintiff State to approach the Court.
Findings of Court:
The suit is maintainable as the issue of canal construction is an implementation matter and not a "water dispute" as defined by law. The Defendant State is legally bound by previous agreements and notifications to complete the project. The Union Government has a constitutional obligation to ensure the implementation of such inter-state obligations, especially when significant public funds have already been expended.
Issues: Whether the construction of the link canal is a "water dispute" under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, that would bar the jurisdiction of the Court, and whether the Defendant State and Union Government are bound to complete the project in a time-bound manner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the water allocation was already determined by the Union Government, the dispute over the carrier (canal) is distinct from the dispute over water sharing. Consequently, the bar under Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act does not apply. Furthermore, inter-state agreements and the principle of cooperative federalism necessitate that a State cannot renege on its commitments based on political shifts.
Result: Suit decreed. Mandatory injunction issued to the Defendant State to make the canal functional within one year, failing which the Union Government is directed to complete the work through its own agencies.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- water law
- contract law
- remedies
Table of Contents
2. Dispute is a water dispute under Inter-State Water Disputes Act, ousting Supreme Court jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Construction of canal is not a water dispute; Parliament excluded it from tribunal reference. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Dispute over canal construction for allocated water is not a water dispute under Section 2(c) of the Act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
5. Mandatory injunction granted to complete SYL Canal within one year; Union to act if Punjab fails. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. Does the dispute over construction of a canal for carrying allocated water fall within the definition of 'water dispute' under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act?
No, because the canal is for utilizing already allocated water, not for use, distribution, or control of river waters. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 barred by Article 262 and Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act?
No, as the suit dispute is not a water dispute under Section 2(c), the bar does not apply. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
8. Is an agreement between political leaders, later recognized by Parliament, enforceable as a binding obligation on the state?
Yes, when terms like paragraph 9.3 of the Punjab Settlement are recognized by Parliament, they are not mere political thickets. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
9. Can a successor government repudiate a consensus-based decision on a matter not involving political philosophy?
No, a succeeding government is bound to continue unfinished jobs based on consensus that do not involve political philosophy. (Para 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT
PATTANAIK
(1) THE State of Haryana has filed the present suit. under Art. 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 24/03/1976. the Agreement of 31/12/1981 and the Settlement of 24/07/1985 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 (falling 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 Honble 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. 1; and (d) pass such other or further order or orders to such directions as this Honble 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. 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 ofRajasthan and State of PEPSU. which meeting had been convened by the Govt. of India on 29/01/1955, a workable agreement was arrived at for development and utilization of the waters of Rivers Ravl 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. 1/11/1966 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 State of Haryana approached the Government of India in October, 1969, Invo
