DHARMENDRA SINGH PHUGHAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting and a very peculiar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court, it is to the effect with regards to the controversy relating to claim, which was raised by the two States over the irrigation canal, which has been a bone of contention between the two States, as to whether the property lying in Gang Nahar, Haridwar, Roorkee, whether it vests with the State of Uttar Pradesh or with the State of Uttarakhand.

(2.) The fact is that regards the management/ownership of the irrigation canal at the time of creation of the State of Uttarakhand w.e.f. 9/11/2000 there was a prior notification issued by the Government of India on 7/11/2000, wherein, the Government of India took a decision by virtue of the aforesaid Government Order that the property, which was lying in the irrigation canal and which was being managed by the Ganga Management Board, would continue to be vested with the State of Uttar Pradesh. A very long drawn controversy arose with regards to the vesting of the property in question whether with the State of Uttarakhand or with the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, challenging the propriety of the notification dtd. 7/11/2000 issued by the Government of India vesting the property with the State of Uttar Pradesh it was put to challenge in a public interest litigation, being WPPIL No. 2 of 2000 'Arvind Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others. In the PIL, which came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court dtd. 29/6/2009, the Division Bench of this Court took the following view:

(3.) Ultimately the effect of the judgment was that the notification of vesting the property with the State of Uttar Pradesh dtd. 7/11/2000 was set aside. Consequently, the property was directed to be reverted back and to be vested with the State of Uttarakhand. The Division Bench issued a writ of mandamus commanding State of Uttar Pradesh to hand over the possession of the property forthwith to the State of Uttarakhand and further as far as the propriety of the agreement dtd. 15/11/2007 is concerned, it was held that it ought not to have been arrived at or was in violation of in terms of Sec. 79 of the Reorganization Act, as Sec. 79 contemplated that whenever there happens to be a controversy with regards to the vesting of property lying within the territory of two States as a consequence of the reorganization, that has to be settled/vested by way of a bilateral agreement to be arrived at between the two States and particularly in relation to the provisions contained under Sec. 79 of the Reorganization Act, constituted to be the part of Part 9 of the Reorganization Act, pertaining to, "The Distribution of Water Resources Development and Its Management". Sec. 79 of the Act is quoted hereunder: