STATE OF HARYANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana has filed the present suit, under Article 131 of the Constitution of India, impleading the State of Punjab as defendant 1 and the Union of India as Defendant 2, for the following reliefs:

(2.) Defendant 1 State of Punjab had filed its written statement, 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 order dated the 24th of March, 1976 as well as agreement dated 31-12-1981 has been challenged before the Ravi-Beas Waters 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 by limitation. The further stand of Defendant 1 is that the earlier suit filed in the year 1979, having been withdrawn without leave of the Court, the present suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as under Order 2 Rule 32 of the Supreme Court Rules. According to Defendant 1, no legal right can be said to have accrued to the State of Haryana under the notification dated 24-3-1976 and further the agreement dated 31-12-1981 is invalid. It is also contended that the said agreement of 1981 stands superseded by the settlement of 24-7-1985. According to Defendant 1, the terms and conditions contained in paragraph 9.3 of the Punjab Settlement was only a unilateral concession made by Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, and it was never intended to be a legal obligation, binding on the State of punjab. Defendant 1 admitted in the written statement that the issues arising from paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of the self-same Punjab Settlement were referred to the adjudication of the Ravi-Beas Waters Tribunal. But paragraph 9.3 had not been referred to any Tribunal and it was merely a concession given by the said Harchand Singh Longowal. Defendant 1 does not dispute the observations of the Tribunal in its report dated 30-1-1987, relating to the aforesaid paragraph 9.3, but contends that such observations were in fact beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. According to Defendant 1, the plaintiff's claim to have share from the 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 and functioning. The said Defendant 1 also averred that the State of Haryana is getting an additional water supply through River Yamuna under the agreement dated 12-5-1994, between the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there is no need for 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 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. Defendant 1 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 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 does 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. Defendant 1 has also averred that only the supplies from river Beas are being transferred to Bhakra reservoir. According to Defendant 1, the allocation of 3.5 MAF to Haryana would deprive the State of Punjab of irrigation facilities to lakhs of acres of land, which are being irrigated in the state of Punjab. So far as the issuance of a white paper is concerned, defendant 1 has averred that the same was a political decision of the Chief minister 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 of turmoil in the State and when the militants killed a Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer. Defendant 1 admitted that there has been an expenditure of Rs 520 crores on the construction of syl Canal in the 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 Defendant 1, no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit, invoking Article 131 of the Constitution and at no stage, the State of Punjab committed itself to the construction of SYL Canal.

(3.) Defendant 2 Union of India in its written statement, took the 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 Defendant 2, the Union of india had already discharged its obligation by pursuing and directing the government of Punjab for early completion of the Punjab portion of the canal. It has been further averred that the Union of India had constituted the ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal, which gave its interim report on the 30-1-1987 and the final report of the Tribunal is awaited. It has also been reiterated in the written statement that the Ravi and Beas Waters Tribunal in its interim report had observed that this canal is the lifeline of 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 in surplus Ravi-Beas waters was envisaged in the 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 waters to Haryana as per the 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 to settle the issue. On the question of amount of money, defendant 2 has averred that the Union of India has provided Rs499.12 crores to the Government of Punjab till March 1994 for completion of the 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 Ravi-Beas waters. The Union Government has also stated that it is essential that the Punjab portion of SYL Canal is completed at the earliest. The said defendant has further averred that construction of SYL Canal is solely the responsibility of the Government of Punjab and the Union of India has made all efforts including the financial assistance to the State of punjab for early completion of the canal. The said defendant has finally stated that while the Government of India will continue to play its role for the settlement of dispute between the two States,' the alternative relief claimed in para (b) of the plaint against the Government of India is not tenable and the same is liable to be rejected.