Judgment

RUMA PAL, J.- Consequent to the creation of the State of Haryana from the erstwhile State of Punjab, the question of apportionment of the river waters made available to the erstwhile State of Punjab between Haryana and Punjab arose. A notification was issued by the Union of India on 24-3-1976 under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, inter alia dividing the river waters between the two States. The Sutlej- Yamuna Link Canal Project covering about 214 km, km, 122 km were to run through the territory of Punjab and 92 km through Haryana. The cost of completion of the canal was to be met by the Central Government. Haryanas portion of the a canal was completed by June 1980. The State of Punjab had not completed its share of the canal although it had been paid the amount necessary for the purpose as also for the recurring expenditure towards maintenance of the canal.

2. A suit was filed by the State of Haryana in 1979 being Suit No. I of 1979 in this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking completion b of the construction of the canal. The State of Punjab also filed a suit being Suit No. 2 of 1979 inter alia challenging Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the notification dated 24-3-1976 by which the river waters were directed to be shared between Haryana and Punjab. During the pendency of the suits, an agreement was entered into between the States of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan in the presence of the Prime Minister of India c on 31-12-1981. The agreement, insofar as it is relevant, provided that the Sutlej- Yamuna Link Canal Project would be implemented in a time-bound manner. The canal and appurtenant works in the Punjab territory were to be completed within a maximum period of two years from the date of the signing of the agreement. On the basis of and after recording this agreement,the suits were allowed to be withdrawn by this Court on 12-2-1982.

3. The date for completion of the canal by Punjab in terms of the agreement dated

31-12-1981 expired. The Punjab portion of the canal remained incomplete. The agreement was sought to be repudiated by the State". A settlement was then arrived at on 24-7-1985 known as "the Punjab Settlement" which dealt with the several disputes between the States of Haryana and Punjab. For the present, we need only note clause 9 of the Settment .It reads:

9. Sharing of river waters

9.1. The farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan will continue to get water not less than what they are using from the Ravi-Beas system as on 1-7-1985; waters used for consumptive purposes will also remain unaffected. Quantum of usage claimed shall be verified by the Tribunal f referred to in para 9.2 below.

9.2. The claims of Punjab and Haryana regarding the shares in their remaining waters will be referred for adjudication to a tribunal to be presided over by a Supreme Court Judge. The decision of this Tribunal will be rendered within six months and would be binding on both parties. All legal and constitutional steps required in this respect be taken expeditiously.

9.3. The construction of SYL Canal shall continue. The canal shall be completed by 15-8-1986."

4. In approval of the Settlement and in terms of the first two clauses of clause 9 of the Settlement, Section 14 was added to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 and issues relating to the usage, share and allocation of the Ravi-Beas waters were referred to the adjudication of the Waters Tribunal by the Union of India under notification dated 2-4-1986. The Tribunal submitted its report on 30-1-1987 inter alia allocating the Ravi-Beas waters between Punjab and Haryana. An application was made by Punjab before the

Waters Tribunal for review of its decision. That application is pending.

5. However, clause 9.3 of the Settlement, which was kept distinct from

the water disputes under clauses 9. I and 9.2, continued to operate. The State of Punjab completed about 90 of the construction of the canal, but about 10 of the con