A battery of senior lawyers led by Ram Jethmalani and

A battery of senior lawyers led by Ram Jethmalani and

ZCZC
PRI GEN LGL NAT
.NEWDEL LGD30
SC-SYL 2 LAST
A battery of senior lawyers led by Ram Jethmalani and
Harish Salve represented Punjab and termed the dispute as “very sensitive” which can be resolved through “government-to- government” initiatives.
“Kindly issue notice to us. This is a very sensitive issue. No counsel should strictly go by the instructions of their clients. We all have to find a solution,” Jethmalani said, adding a group of experts can be asked to go into the issue and “the court should not decide the matter strictly on legal considerations”.
Salve, also representing Punjab, said there should not be any order to restore the position as it would amount to quashing of decisions taken by the state government with regard to de-notification of land and their return to farmers.
“There is assembly resolution…the land cannot disappear.
The land will remain as they are,” he said, adding that Punjab is also facing acute water problem and moreover, the ground water is also depleting.
Earlier, the apex court had agreed to hear the plea of Haryana alleging that Punjab was violating its earlier interim order that the status quo on land meant for Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal be maintained.
The five-judge constitution bench has recently held that Punjab cannot “unilaterally” terminate the agreement or legislate to “nullify” the verdict of the highest court.
The controversial 1981 water-sharing agreement came into being after Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966.
For effective allocation of water, SYL canal link was conceptualised and both the states were required to construct its portions in their territory.
Haryana constructed the portion of SYL canal in its territory. However, Punjab after initial work, stopped the work leading to spate of litigations.
In 2004, the Congress government of the state came out with the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act with an intention to terminate the 1981 agreement and all other pacts relating to sharing of waters of rivers Ravi and Beas.
The apex court had first decreed the suit of Haryana in 2002 asking Punjab to honour its commitments with regard to water sharing in the case.
Punjab challenged the verdict by filing an original suit which was rejected in 2004 by the Supreme Court which asked the Centre to take over the remaining infrastructural work of the SYL canal project. PTI SJK MNL RKS
ZMN
11301940
NNNN

PTI