The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed the Punjab government’s decision to denotify land acquired for the building of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, saying it was a “clear case of high-handedness”.
Presiding over a two-judge bench, Justice B R Gavai wondered if it was an attempt to defeat the decree of the court.
“Was it not an act of high-handedness that once a decree was passed, land which was acquired for the construction of the canal was de-notified? It is trying to defeat the decree of the court. Clear case of high-handedness,” Justice Gavai asked Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, who appeared for the state.
Justice Gavai also pointed out to Singh that the court had in 2017 asked the state to maintain the status quo with regard to the land and other properties associated with the canal project. Singh said it is an emotive issue with the public in the state, and Punjab, being a border state, could not afford any unrest over the issue.
The senior counsel also said that Haryana is already getting its share based on consumption, and its demand for additional water is before a tribunal. This prompted Justice Gavai to ask, “So according to you, this court has passed a decree without considering everything? You are attributing non-application of mind (to the court).”
The court asked the two states to cooperate with the Centre to resolve the issue, failing which the bench said it will hear the matter again on August 13.
The court was hearing a suit filed by Haryana regarding the construction of the project for sharing the water of the Ravi and Beas rivers with Punjab. In 2022, the Supreme Court had directed that the canal be completed within one year. Two years later, in 2024, the Punjab government terminated its 1981 agreement with Haryana to share the river water.
The President then referred the question for the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court.
Rendering its opinion, the Supreme Court said in 2016, “The agreement could not have been unilaterally terminated by one of the parties by exercising its legislative power and if any party or any state does so, such unilateral action of a particular state has to be declared contrary to the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956.”
