R Sedhuraman

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, November 30



The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to Punjab and the Centre on Haryana’s plea for construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal to draw its share of Ravi-Beas waters. The court also sought a report from the Union Home Secretary and Punjab Chief Secretary and Director General of Police on the status of the land acquired for the canal.

A Bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy posted the next hearing for December 15, asking Punjab and the Centre to file their response before that. (Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd) As the apex court did not pass any order altering the present status of the SYL canal land, Punjab farmers would retain possession of the land at least for now. The Punjab government returned the acquired land to the farmers through a notification issued on November 16, 2016 on the strength of a resolution passed in the Assembly and a Cabinet decision.

Arguing for Haryana, senior counsel Shyam Divan questioned the validity of the November 16 notification. He said a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled on November 10 that Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, was in violation of the Constitution, the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, besides being against two apex court judgments delivered on January 15, 2002 and June 4, 2004.

Answering the Presidential Reference on the validity of the 2004 Act, the Constitution Bench had also held that the Assembly had no power to enact any law to nullify the apex court’s decree in favour of Haryana

It was clear from the ruling on the 2004 Act that the November 16 notification, which was only an executive action, had no legal sanctity, Divan pleaded and contended that the Union Home Secretary and the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP, who had been appointed as court receivers of the canal land on March 17, 2016 while hearing the Presidential reference, continued to be receivers.

“Are you not insisting on status quo ante,” the Bench asked Haryana. Initially, Divan said his client wanted a clarification that the three receivers continued to be in possession of the land as the SC had not discharged them from their duty though the November 10 ruling did not specify that their tenure stood extended.