STATE OF HARYANA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 15-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
V. 
~ 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
) 
JANUARY 15, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIKAND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956/Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966-
r 
Sections 2(c), 1 I/Section 78-Bifurcation of erstwhile State of Punjab into 
two Stales, Punjab and Haryana, in 1966-Notification in March 1976 by c 
the Government of India allocating water to the plaintiff-State after an 
agreement with the State of Punjab-Haryana State unable to draw its 
allocated share of water through the existing Bhakra Main Line Canal-
Proposal by the Haryana State for the construction of a new canal called 
Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal (SYL Canal) for full drawing of its allocated 
water-Agreement entered in with the State of Punjab for the construction D 
of the canal-Construction of the canal completed in the territory of the 
Haryana State-Non-completion of the canal in the territory of the State of 
Punjab-Suit filed before the Supreme Court against the State of Punjab for 
early completion of the canal-Counter-suit filed by the State of Punjab 
challenging the notification of the Government of India of March 1976 and E 
vires of the Act-Agreement in December 1981 between the States for 
completion of the canal within two years by the State of Punjab with the 
intervention by the Government of India and accordingly suits withdrawn-
Repudiation of the agreement by the State of Punjab-Punjab settlement 
entered into between the then Prime Minister and President of a political 
party of the State of Punjab providing for early completion of the construction F 
of the canal-Stoppage of construction by the State of Punjab after completion 
of 90% of the work-Suit by Haryana State seeking mandatory injunction to 
the State of Punja{> for early completion of the canal-Maintainability of the 
suit under the Constitution-Held, the dispute is not a water dispute under 
the Act and hence the Supreme Court is not barred in exercising its G 
''" 
jurisdiction-Mandatory injunction granted directing the State of Punjab for 
completion of the canal within one year-Constitution of India-Articles 131 
and 262. 
After the partition of India, Government of India signed a Treaty with 
Government of Pakistan called the Indus Water Treaty. Under the Treaty, H 
227 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A the waters of the rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were acquired for exclusive 
use oflndia for a fixed consideration. In 1955, an agreement was entered into 
for sharing of the waters of the rivers Ravi and Beas among the erstwhile 
State of Punjab, State of Kashmir, State ofRajasthan and the erstwhile State 
of PEPSU. The share of the erstwhile State of Punjab was 5.90 MAF. 
B 
In 1966, the erstwhile State of Punjab was bifurcated into two separate 
States-Punjab and Haryana under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Due 
to differences between the two States regarding the sharing of water out of 
the allocation to the erstwhile State of Punjab, an ad-hoc decision was taken 
that the plaintiff-State and defendant-State would share 35% and 65% of the 
C water respectively. On the demand by the plaintiff-~tate, a Committee was 
appointed by the Government oflndia to determine the water-sharing among 
the two States. The Committee recommended 3.782 MAF on water to the 
plaintiff-State. 
The Government of India issued a notification under Section 78 of the 
D Act in March 1976 determining the share of water among the two States. 
The notification allocated 3.5 MAF of water to the plaintiff-State. However, 
the allocated water could not be drawn by the plaintiff-State with the existing 
Bbakra Main Line Canal. Hence, the plaintiff-State suggested construction 
of another link canal called the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (SYL Canal) in 
both the States for drawing its allocated share of water. The alignment of the 
E proposed canal was alongside the Nangal Hydel Channel and Bhakra Main 
Line Canal. The defendant-State agreed to the proposed canal. The plaintiff-
State started the construction of the canal in its territory in 1976 and 
completed the same in June 1980. 
The plaintiff-State filed a suit before this Court under Article 131 of 
F the Constitution against the defendant-State for non completion of the SYL 
canal in its territory as per the agreement. The defendant-State also filed a 
counter-suit challenging the validity of the notification of March 1976 and 
the vires of Section 78 of the Act. During the pendency of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.