R.V.RAVEENDRAN, A.K.PATNAIK
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
A. K. Patnaik, J. —
This dispute between the State of Himachal Pradesh (Plaintiff), on the one hand, and the Union of India (defendant No.1), State of Punjab (defendant No.2), State of Haryana (defendant No.3), State of Rajasthan (defendant No.4) and Union Territory of Chandigarh (defendant No.5), on the other hand, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India relates to the power generated in the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas Projects.
The Case of the Plaintiff (State of Himachal Pradesh) in the plaint
2. The Bhakra dam across the river Satluj was proposed in the year 1944 in the Bilaspur State. The construction of Bhakra dam was to result in submergence of a large territory of the Bilaspur State but would benefit the Province of Punjab. Hence, the Raja of Bilaspur agreed to the proposal for construction of the Bhakra dam only on certain terms and conditions detailed in a draft agreement which was to be executed on behalf of the Raja of Bilaspur and the Province of Punjab. These terms and conditions included payment of royalties for generation of power from the water of the reservoir of the Bhakra dam. The formal agreement between the Raja of Bilaspur and the province of Punja
In Re: Caurvey Water Disputes Tribuanal
State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Others
State of Seraikella and Others v. Union of India and Another
Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay and another
State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, and Another
State of Haryana v. State of Punjab and Another
Kuldip Nayar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 1 (Paras 64 and 65)
U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 464 (Para 41)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.