9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State of Punjab and alternatively, the Union of India, were and are bound to construct and complete the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project. 2. Maintainability of the suit. 3. Limitation of the suit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Obligation to Construct and Complete the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project: The State of Haryana filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, seeking a decree for the completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project. The State of Haryana argued that the canal is essential for its farmers to receive their share of Ravi and Beas waters, as allocated under various agreements and orders, including the 1976 Notification, the 1981 Agreement, and the 1985 Settlement. The State of Punjab, however, contended that the dispute falls under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and thus, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is barred. Punjab also argued that Haryana's claim is barred by limitation and that the earlier suit filed by Haryana was withdrawn without leave, barring the current suit under procedural rules. The Court examined whether the dispute is a "water dispute" as defined in Section 2(c) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. It concluded that the dispute centers on the construction of the canal, not the allocation of water, and thus does not fall under the Act. The Court emphasized that the agreements and orders, including the 1981 Agreement facilitated by the Prime Minister, mandated the canal's construction. The Court held that the State of Punjab is bound by these agreements and must complete the canal. The Union of India, having facilitated these agreements, also has an obligation to ensure their implementation. 2. Maintainability of the Suit: The State of Punjab argued that the suit is not maintainable under Article 131 due to the provisions of Article 262 and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, which oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in water disputes. However, the Court found that the present dispute is not about the allocation of water but about the construction of the canal, which is a distinct issue. Therefore, the suit is maintainable under Article 131. 3. Limitation of the Suit: The issue of limitation was raised by the State of Punjab but was not seriously pressed during the hearing. The Court noted that Article 112 of the Limitation Act, which provides a 30-year limitation period for suits by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government, does not apply to suits under Article 131. The Court also observed that the cause of action is continuous, as the canal's construction remains incomplete. Therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. Judgment: The Court directed the State of Punjab to complete the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal within one year. If Punjab fails to do so, the Union of India is directed to ensure the canal's completion through its agencies. The Court emphasized the importance of the canal for Haryana's farmers and the significant public funds already spent on the project. The suit was decreed in favor of Haryana, with no order as to costs.
|
