2004 (6) TMI 619 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking completion of the construction of the canal - challenging Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the notification dated 24th March 1976 by which the river waters were directed to be shared between Haryana and Punjab - Held that - Appeal allowed. We direct the Union of India to carry out its proposed action plan within the following time frame The Union of India is to mobilize a Central agency to take control of the canal works from Punjab within a month from today. Punjab must hand over the works to the Central Agency within 2 (Two) weeks thereafter. An empowered committee should be set up to coordinate and facilitate the early Implementation of the decree within 4 (four) weeks from today. Representatives of the States of Haryana and Punjab should be included in such Committee. The construction of the remaining portion of the canal including the survey; preparation of detailed estimates and other preparatory works such as repair desilting clearance of vegetation etc. are to be executed and completed by the Central Agency within such time as the High Powered Committee will determine. The Central and the Punjab Government should provide adequate security for the staff of the Central Agency. We conclude this chapter with a reminder to the State of Punjab that Great states have a temper superior to that of private litigants and it is to be hoped that enough has been decided for patriotism the fraternity of the Union and mutual consideration to bring it to an end

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Division of river waters between Haryana and Punjab.
2. Completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal.
3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131.
4. Validity of agreements and settlements regarding water sharing.
5. Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
6. Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
7. Enforcement of the Supreme Court's decree dated January 15, 2002.
8. Res judicata and its applicability.
9. Maintenance of law and order in executing the decree.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Division of River Waters Between Haryana and Punjab:
The division of river waters between Haryana and Punjab arose after the creation of the State of Haryana from Punjab. The Union of India issued a notification on March 24, 1976, under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, dividing the river waters. The Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project was to be constructed through Punjab and Haryana, with the cost covered by the Central Government.

2. Completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal:
Haryana completed its portion of the canal by June 1980, while Punjab did not complete its share despite receiving necessary funds. Haryana filed Suit No. 1 of 1979 seeking completion of the canal, and Punjab filed Suit No. 2 of 1979 challenging the division of waters and the notification. An agreement on December 13, 1981, mandated the completion of the canal within two years. The canal remained incomplete, leading to further disputes and settlements, including the Punjab Settlement of November 5, 1985, which reaffirmed the canal's completion by August 15, 1986.

3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Under Article 131:
Punjab questioned the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 131, arguing that the suit was barred under various legal provisions. The Court maintained its jurisdiction, emphasizing that the issues raised involved legal rights and obligations.

4. Validity of Agreements and Settlements Regarding Water Sharing:
The agreements and settlements, including the 1981 agreement and the 1985 Punjab Settlement, were deemed binding on the parties. The Court held that Punjab could not repudiate these agreements, and the construction of the canal was a separate issue from water disputes.

5. Challenge to the Constitutionality of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966:
Punjab challenged the constitutionality of Section 78, which was previously raised and withdrawn in Suit No. 2 of 1979. The Court held that the issue could not be raised again due to the principles of res judicata and Order XXXII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules.

6. Challenge to the Constitutionality of Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956:
Punjab challenged Section 14, arguing it was ultra vires the Constitution. The Court found the challenge unsustainable, as Punjab had previously submitted to the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the issues had been adjudicated.

7. Enforcement of the Supreme Court's Decree Dated January 15, 2002:
Haryana sought enforcement of the decree directing Punjab to complete the canal. Punjab did not comply, leading to further legal actions. The Court emphasized the constitutional duty to comply with its decrees and rejected Punjab's arguments for deferring execution.

8. Res Judicata and Its Applicability:
The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata, barring Punjab from raising issues already adjudicated. This principle ensures finality in litigation and prevents re-litigation of the same issues.

9. Maintenance of Law and Order in Executing the Decree:
The Court directed the Union of India to implement an action plan for completing the canal, emphasizing the need for cooperation from Punjab and adequate security for the executing agencies. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding constitutional processes and maintaining law and order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court rejected Punjab's suit challenging the decree and directed the Union of India to complete the SYL canal, emphasizing the binding nature of the agreements and the constitutional duty to comply with judicial decrees. The principles of res judicata and the need for maintaining law and order were underscored in ensuring the execution of the decree.