File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Andhra Pradesh versus Karnataka Krishna River Water Dispute

India is a Federal democracy consisting of various rivers that cross interstate boundaries. It is thus, essential to evolve a mechanism that is efficient and effective in resolving disputes over river water between the states. Water disputes are not uncommon in India; numerous disputes have taken place in India since Independence.

The allocation of water has always been a controversial issue. The primary reason for the increase in demand for water is due to the uncontrollable growth of population along with irrigation-based agriculture, rapid industrialization, and the rise of thermal power.[1] Although the Constitution does not have many provisions with respect to water disputes, it does, however, provide the Parliament with the power to make laws on this subject.[2] The politicization of interstate water disputes in India inevitably leads to the ineffectiveness of the dispute resolution structure.

One such dispute is the Krishna Water Dispute between the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. The river Krishna flows through these three rivers, with Andhra Pradesh being the lowermost riparian state. The Bachawat Commission came out with the award in 1976. Both Karnataka and AP filed a suit in this regard and hence the present case.

An issue that generally crops up in water dispute suits is related to the jurisdiction of the SC. A.262 bars the SC to entertain matters classified as water disputes. The meaning of water dispute is given under S.2(c) of Interstate Water Dispute Act of 1956. This contention was raised by the respondents in this case. The critical question that arose, in this case, was whether A.262 bars the SC from interpreting and implementing the award of the KWDT.

The Ministry of Power replied to the letter of the objection by Andhra Pradesh that the clearance for the construction is an administrative action for developmental activities and is not a techno-economic clearance. It became apparent that the State of Karnataka was not inclined to the amicable resolution of the issue and therefore approached the Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. The 43-year-old dispute on how to divide the surplus water from the River Krishna has been resolved.

Karnataka will get more water than what was allocated earlier, while Andhra Pradesh gets the maximum share of surplus water. The cause of action for filing the suit being the indulgence of the State of Karnataka is going ahead with the Upper Krishna Project Stage I and II with the construction of the Almatti Dam violative to the decisions of the tribunal. State of AP filed a suit impleading the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, and UOI.[3]

AP has filed the suit under A.131 impleading Karnataka, UOI and Maharashtra is seeking relief of declaration and mandatory injunction on the allegation that Karnataka, in particular, has made gross violations of the decision of KWDT, and these violations have adversely affected the people and the economy of AP.[4]

The approval of the Central Government will be required under the federal setup as and when any project is to be constructed in Karnataka State. It has to get clearance from appropriate statutory and executive authorities. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the State of Karnataka would proceed with the construction of such a dam without the approval of the Central Government. Allowing the state of Karnataka to raise the height of the dam would cause extensive damage to parts of Maharashtra.

It would increase the water usage and storage of Karnataka, thereby violating the award if the tribunal. Thus the dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka over increasing the height falls under water dispute and must be decided by the KWDT.[5]

Facts

  1. There Has been a dispute over Tungabhadra and Krishna since the colonial times. In 1944 there was an agreement between the states with respect to the distribution of water of Tungabhadra. The dispute over Krishna arose between states of Bombay, Mysore, and AP, when the States Reorganization Act 1956 came into force.

    The Central government in 1963 allotted 400 TMC, 600TMC and 800 TMC to Bombay, Mysore and AP, respectively. The states did not agree with this and the state of Maharashtra requested for reference of the case to the tribunal. The Central government tried to resolve the dispute until 1969 but was unsuccessful. They constituted the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal under S. 4 of Inter State Water Dispute Act of 1956. The Act was enacted under A. 262.
     
  2. The Tribunal reported in 1973 to the government under S.5 (2) of the Act after hearing all the parties and examining the evidence. However the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and AP asked for further consideration and the Final The order was released in 1976, and a review was to be conducted in 2000.
     
  3. The The order had two schemes: Scheme A and Scheme B. Scheme A looked at the dependability of Krishna and declared it as 75%. It allotted 560 TMC, 700 TMC, and 800 TMC as the maximum amount to Maharashtra, Karnataka, and AP, respectively. It also said that in case of a surplus, AP would be allowed to use it. It also mentioned the solution in case of a deficit year based on the percentage of water. Scheme B was introduced for proper implementation of this order and suggested that the Krishna Water Authority should be established based on the consent of all the parties. AP did not agree to this, and the matter was left for the Parliament to legislate on under entry 56 of the Union List.

    Hence, Scheme B was not made a part of the Final Order. Both AP and Karnataka filed a suit at the SC. As per the award of Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh is the last, riparian owner was allowed the use of the remaining water that may flow in the river Krishna beyond the allotted quantity; the State of Andhra Pradesh did not acquire any right for the excess water, but it was permitted to store water in the Nagarjunasgar Dam and Srisailam Dam. On 4th of May, 1973, all the three States raised issues on the allocation method adopted by the tribunal marked as Exhibit MRK-340 and called for the mass allocation of utilizable dependable flow at 75% and also for allocation on a percentage basis in surplus as well as deficit years of flow and restrictions with regard to the use and the nature of such restrictions to be decided by the tribunal. To solve the issue, Scheme B was evolved, and it required the Constitution of the Krishna Valley Authority to which Andhra Pradesh did not agree. Scheme B was a part of the original report of the tribunal but was not in the final order.
     
  4. 4. The Ministry of Power replied to the letter of the objection by Andhra Pradesh that the clearance for the construction is an administrative action for developmental activities and is not a techno-economic clearance. It became apparent that the State of Karnataka was not inclined to the amicable resolution of the issue and therefore approached the Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. The 43-year-old dispute on how to divide the surplus water from the River Krishna has been resolved.

    Karnataka will get more water than what was allocated earlier, while Andhra Pradesh gets the maximum share of surplus water. The cause of action for filing the suit being the indulgence of the State of Karnataka in going ahead with the Upper Krishna Project Stage I and II with the construction of the Almatti Dam Violative to the decisions of the tribunal. State Of AP filed a suit impleading the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, and UOI.
     
  5. After the tribunal passed the award as per Scheme A & B, State of Karnataka and State of Andhra Pradesh filed cases in Supreme Court against each other in 1997 and added Union of India, State of Maharashtra and Ministry of Power as Defendants.

The Court clubbed the two petitions:
Original Suit No. 1 - State of Karnataka V. State of Andhra Pradesh
Original Suit No. 2 - State of Andhra Pradesh V. State of Karnataka
Both cases were decided on 25th April, 2000.

Contentions of Karnataka
Based on the agreement between the parties, 75% dependable flow at Vijayawada was found to be 2060 TMC and while taking into account the case of each State for allocation of their respective share of water, several projects in the river basin already undertaken by the State were considered by the tribunal based on which the ultimate figure of the allocation was arrived at.

The tribunal, while restraining Maharashtra from using more water than allocated in their favor, granted liberty to AP to use the remaining water with the condition that AP will not acquire any right to the user of such water except to the extent allocated to it.

The plaintiff also averred that while making an allocation to the three states, no express provisions were made for sharing of any deficiency.

It was also averred that to relieve AP from the aforesaid difficulty; the tribunal permitted it to store water in various dams and to prevent water from getting submerged in the sea.

It has been averred in the plaint that so far as Upper Krishna Project is concerned within Karnataka, the tribunal has allocated only 160 TMC of water for being used and the construction of Almatti Dam to the height of 524 meters would be an in violation of the decision of the tribunal. Therefore, this Court should prohibit Karnataka in going ahead with the Almatti Dam upto the height of 524 Meters, as indicated in its project.

The plaintiff referred to correspondence made between Karnataka and AP inter se, as well as correspondence between these States and Union Government and Central Water Commission. It has also been averred that allowing Karnataka to construct the dam at Almatti up to a height of 524 Metres would be grossly detrimental to AP inasmuch as for three months in a year from July to September, AP may go dry, and the entire crop in the region would get damaged for the paucity of water.

In paragraph 39 of the plaint, it has been averred that the Union Government as well as the Central Water Commission which are responsible for clearance of interstate projects bent upon clearing the Almatti Project up to a dam height of 524 meters without even consulting AP, though, according to the plaintiff in a federal government, each constituent state would be entitled to know the progress of any project in relation to any such project, since it may have several adverse effects on them.

Specific Reliefs Sought By Andhra Pradesh
AP has filed the suit under A.131 impleading Karnataka, UOI and Maharashtra seeking relief of declaration and mandatory injunction on the the allegation that Karnataka, in particular, has made gross violations of the the decision of KWDT and these violations have adversely affected the people and The economy of AP.

The reliefs they sought were:

  1. Declare that the the decision of 1997 of KWDT is binding upon all the parties, i.e. AP, Karnataka, Maharashtra and UOI.
  2. Declare that the states are duty bound to reveal to each other and also UOI all particulars of all projects undertaken or proposed after 1973 and to ensure that execution does Not violate the decisions of the KWDT.
  3. Declare that the parties are entitled to utilize not more than the quantity of water which is allocated Or permitted by the decisions of the KWDT.
  4. Declare that UOI is duty bound to consult all the states before according any Sanctions to any projects proposed or undertaken by any of the states.
  5. Grant an injunction directing Karnataka to undo all its illegal, unauthorized actions regarding Projects. E.g., Almatti Dam, Upper Krishari Projects.
  6. Grant a permanent injunction restraining Karnataka from the undertaking, continuing or proceeding with any further Construction in the above-mentioned projects.
  7. Permanent injunction restraining the Karnataka from growing wet crops in the command areas falling under the projects within the Upper Krishna Project.


Essentially the reliefs sought are mainly with respect to the construction of Almatti Dam under Upper Krishna Project by Karnataka to a height of 524.25M.

Issues Before The Court

  • a) Can the SC exercise jurisdiction on implementation and interpretation on the award Of the tribunal even though it is barred under A.262?
  • b) Can Does Karnataka raise the height of the Almatti dam?


Summary of Judgment
A five-judge gave the judgment bench.

The first issue that was addressed by the the court was with respect to their jurisdiction to decide the matter.[6] They observed:
262. Adjudication of disputes relating to waters of Inter-State rivers or river valleys.- (1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in Clause (I)

If the plaintiff wants adjudication of any dispute between it and the other contesting States, i.e. Karnataka and Maharashtra which are upper riparian States located in the Krishna basin through which the river Krishna it must not be a water dispute as defined the Disputes Act as per Section 2(c) as under[7]:

water dispute means any dispute or difference between two or more State Governments with respect to-

  1. the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley;
  2. the interpretation of the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters or the implementation of such agreement;
  3. the levy of any water-rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in Section 7.


It is Clear that the disputes raised by AP pertain to the non-implementation of the binding award of the KWDT by Karnataka. It has nothing to do with raising a water dispute. According to the plaintiff, whatever was, the earlier water dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants it was already adjudicated upon by the Tribunal constituted under S. 4 of the Disputes Act and which decision was duly published under S. 6 thereof being the decision pertaining to Scheme "A."

The grievance of the plaintiff State is that though the decision is binding on the upper riparian States, the executive action of the concerned States amounts to flouting and violation of the binding decision of the Tribunal. This raises the question of the execution and implementation of an already adjudicated water dispute.

Once that conclusion is reached, it becomes obvious that A. 262 would be out of the picture, and only A. 131 will remain operative for being invoked by the disputant State against the defendant States, as it would certainly raise a dispute regarding execution and implementation of the binding award of the Tribunal. Therefore the SC held that it had power to entertain the suit since the said dispute was not a water dispute.[8]

The another issue which was raised in this case was to do with increasing the height of the Almatti dam.[9]

The construction of Almatti Dam above the height 519m will meet the requirement of Karnataka on the one hand and also the grievance of the plaintiff on the other hand. In other words, construction of Almatti Dam with the height of 524m may not be feasible or permissible at this stage looking to the allocation of the gross quantity of water to Karnataka as per Scheme "A" on the basis of 75% dependable availability of water per each water year as decided upon by the Tribunal.

Any increase of the height beyond 519 m. may depend upon further allotment of water to Karnataka State by any subsequent decision of the Tribunal, as and when constituted, as that would depend upon the implementation of proposed Scheme "B," which up till now, has not been elevated to the status of a binding decision of any Water Disputes Tribunal. The grievance of other riparian States will arise if such construction is likely to affect the available water flow of the interstate river as available to it by any adjudication of the Tribunal or if it raises a dispute in this connection to be adjudicated upon by any future Tribunals.[10]

In this context reference may be made to an earlier decision of this Court reported in (in the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal[11]) Wherein this Court, while analyzing Article 262 and the Water Disputes Act. 1956 stated:
An analysis of the article shows that an exclusive power is given to the Parliament to enact a law providing for the adjudication of such disputes. The disputes or complaints for which adjudication may be provided related to the "use, distribution, or control" of the waters of or in any inter-State river or river valley. The words "use." "distribution," and "control" are of wide import and may include regulation and development of the said waters.

The approval of the Central Government will be required under the federal setup as and when any project is to be constructed in Karnataka State. It has to get clearance from appropriate statutory and executive authorities.[12] It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the State of Karnataka would proceed with the construction of such a dam without the approval of the Central Government.

Allowing the state of Karnataka to raise the height of the dam would cause extensive damage to parts of Maharashtra and would increase the water usage and storage of Karnataka, thereby violating the award if the tribunal. Thus the dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka over increasing the height falls under water dispute and must be decided by the KWDT.

Analysis
The author agrees with the above judgment.

  1. Whether such a suit was barred by section 11 of the Act, 1956 read with Article 262(2) of Constitution of India to be filed to the Supreme Court of India?
    It was held that Scheme "B" not being a decision of tribunal as per Section 5(2) of Act, 1956 itself won’t get the suit barred as per Section 11. Further to see whether or not Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case or not relief sought in plaint and assertions in the plaint are seen. If they amount to water dispute as per section 2(c)[13] of the Act 1956, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is ousted under Section 11. In this case, as the implementation of the award doesn’t fall within water dispute Supreme Court was held to have jurisdiction over the case under article 131 of the Constitution of India.
     
  2. Regarding Cause of Action under Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 as State of Andhra Pradesh refused to Constitute of a River Valley Board Authority, which made the scheme B not possible to be implemented.
    This Was accepted as the cause of action by the Supreme Court.
     
  3. For mass allocation as per Scheme B, whether the suit was liable to dismissed as being contrary to the decision as per the report of the Tribunal (KWDT)?
    It was held the as Tribunal in their decision has made the implementation of Scheme B at options of parties such implementation can’t be done by Supreme Court Against the Final order of the tribunal. For this part the petition was Dismissed by the Supreme Court.
     
  4. Whether "decision" of KWDT for Scheme B binding on parties under Section 6 of Act 1956 for the use of surplus water as per Clause (V)(c)[14] read with Clause XIV(A)[15] in the or Scheme 'B' did not form part of "Final Order" by KWDT under section 5(2)?
    It was held that when the tribunal has not made Scheme B a part of Final Order, Supreme Court can’t decide on that issue due to bar imposed under Section 1 of the Act, 1956. Further, in case of clarification reading the award, the States of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Union of India have sought it under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1956, so for this issue, the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
     
  5. On the issue raised by the State of Maharashtra: Whether or not it was fair and equitable to implement Scheme 'B' at this stage?
    It was held that the back-bone of the Scheme Krishna Valley Authority was not constituted and also, States themselves don’t have reservoirs for storage of surplus water (a part of Scheme "B) But as Scheme "B" was not a decision of the tribunal, Courts can also not issue any direction for its implementation. Thus for this part, the petition was dismissed.
     
  6. What was SC’s take on sharing surplus water?
    it was held on Liberty to use surplus water as per the decision of KWDT precludes utilization of surplus water by Andhra Pradesh, by means of projects of permanent nature and on whether decision of KWDT entitles State of Andhra Pradesh to execute projects it was appropriate for Central Government to exercise discretion while granting any scheme or project of lowest riparian state and bearing in mind, what was really meant by liberty granted. And the petition was dismissed for this part.
     
  7. For a review of the order of Tribunal sought.
    It was held to be premature as a provision of the review was already given in the award passed after 31st May 2000. As far as the issue of raising the height of Almatti Dam beyond 519 M the decision can be made by Tribunal on complaints raised by any of the three disputant States and subsequently getting their clearance. This question can be taken up for consideration by the Tribunal after 31st May 2000 when Scheme "A" will come up or review.


Therefore the Supreme The court, in this case, dismissed the petition without an order for cost, except for deciding on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 131 and its extent in Inter-State Water Disputes and bar of section 262, of Constitution of India.[16]

After re-organization of the states in November 1956 the Central Water and Power Commission drew up scheme for re-allocation of Krishna river water which was not accepted by the concerned States with the result that an Inter-State Conference was held in September 1960 but as no settlement could be arrived at, the matter was ultimately referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

In interpreting the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India[17] Chandrachud, J., as he then was, held that
the requirement is that the the dispute must involve a question, whether of law or fact, on which the existence Or extent of a legal right depends. It is this qualification which affords the a true guide for determining whether a particular dispute is comprehended within Article 131.

Till the KWDT was set up, sharing of Krishna river water was governed by two agreements from colonial times: the 1892 agreement between the Mysore Princely State and the Madras Presidency; and, the 1933 agreement between the Hyderabad Princely State and the Madras Presidency.

Both the agreements had the Madras presidency at an advantage. These agreements put certain restrictions on undertaking or modifying new works by Mysore and Hyderabad. Before the KWDT, the issue of how the two agreements had to be treated came up. KWDT did not unequivocally declare the agreements as invalid. Instead, it modified in a manner to grant protection to already existing irrigation works in Karnataka.[18]

In State of Karnataka v. Union of India and Anr.[19] the Supreme Court again considered the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution as:
The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 131 of the Constitution should not be tested on the anvil of banal rules which are applied under the CPC for determining whether a suit is maintainable. Article 131 undoubtedly confers 'original jurisdiction' on the Supreme Court and the commonest form of a legal proceeding, which is tried by a court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, is a suit.

But a constitutional provision, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to entertain disputes of a certain nature in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, cannot be equated with a provision conferring a right on a civil court to entertain a common suit so as to apply to an original proceeding under Article 131 the canons of a suit which is ordinarily triable under Section 15 of the CPC by a court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

A.131 Is constitutional conferment of jurisdiction with regard to certain specified matters which are required to be decided by the SC because of the nature of the differences and disputes. This conferment of jurisdiction is under special circumstances and for special reasons having the concept of justice being the predominant factor behind the inclusion of such an article in the Constitution.[20]

As for the issue of raising the height of the Almatti dam, both the states of AP and Maharashtra oppose it. Several areas in Maharashtra would get affected due to floods. The Kharif crop in AP would suffer since the farmers rely on Krishna water. The months of July, August and September are imperative for the farmers and non-availability Water would affect their livelihood. The dam is used to store water, and to raise the height would allow more water to be saved, which is against the award of the tribunal. This would allow Karnataka to use more water than allocated to it by the KWDT.

As given Under S. 2(c), the fact that the court was merely looking at an already decided award meant that they were dealing with an interstate water dispute.

The court can exercise their power under A.131. As observed by Justice Chandrachud in State of Karnataka v. UOI[21].
I consider that the Constitution has purposefully conferred on this Court a jurisdiction which is untrammeled by considerations which fetter the jurisdiction of a court of First instance, which entertains and tries suits of a civil nature. The very nature of the disputes arising under Article 131 is different, both in form and substance, from the nature of claims which require adjudication in ordinary suits.
The state of Karnataka wanted Scheme B to Be published so that it has a binding effect on the parties.

Scheme B allows for the constitution of a separate body called Krishna Valley Authority by the Parliament for the allocation of water during the surplus years. Scheme B has been expressly recommended Subject to alternative contingencies-

  • a) an agreement between the parties or,
  • b) Legislation by Parliament

It is by reason of the factum of non-fulfillment of either of the two happenings the question of Scheme B as being capable of being published as a decision of KWDT It does not arise. Scheme B, in short, would not constitute a decision.[22] The Krishna Valley Authority shall have to be created by the Central Government and having due regard to the fact that the Central Government has not created any such authority as yet, question of implementation of Scheme B, as a decision of The Tribunal does not and cannot arise.

Hence there cannot possibly be any binding direction either and there has been none in the matter of Constitution of an Authority such as Krishna Valley Authority, it has been left solely to the concurrence of the parties and the legislative intent of the legislature.[23]

The Supreme The court in the case of Delhi Judicial Services v. State of Gujarat[24], where it was observed that:
No enactment made by Central or State the legislature can limit or restrict the power' of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, though while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court must take into consideration the statutory provisions Regulating the matter in dispute.

What would be the need to "complete justice" in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power the Court would take Into consideration the express provisions of a substantive statute. Once this Court has taken seisin of a case, cause or matter, it has the power to pass any order or issue direction as may be necessary to do complete justice in the matter.

The power of The Tribunal to deal Scheme B is outside the purview of its jurisdiction. It It can be dealt with in only two situations, as mentioned above. The obligation to notify or publish arises only in the event of compliance of statutory requirement or there being a final decision of the Tribunal and in the contextual facts as noted above, there is no implement able Scheme B by any stretch neither can the same be termed to be a decision of the Tribunal pertaining to the Krishna Valley water dispute between the three States of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh.

Conclusion
The suit of both Karnataka and AP were dismissed by the SC. The award of KWDT-1 was to be reviewed in the year 2000. However, this did not happen. Therefore another KWDT was set up to divide the surplus water in the Krishna basin. The Tribunal came out with an award in 2010.

[25]The power of the Tribunal to deal with Scheme B is outside the purview of its jurisdiction. It can be dealt with in only two situations, as mentioned above. The obligation to notify or publish arises only in the event of compliance of statutory requirement, or there is a final decision of the Tribunal and in the contextual facts as noted above, there is no implementable Scheme B by any stretch neither can the same be termed to be a decision of the Tribunal pertaining to Krishna Valley water dispute between the three states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

A.131 Is constitutional conferment of jurisdiction with regard to certain specified matters which are required to be decided by the SC because of the nature of the differences and disputes. This conferment of jurisdiction is under special circumstances and for special reasons having the concept of justice being the predominant factor behind the inclusion of such an article in the Constitution.[26]

As for the issue of raising the height of the Almatti dam, both the states of AP and Maharashtra oppose it. Several areas in Maharashtra would get affected due to floods. The Kharif crop in AP would suffer since the farmers rely on Krishna water. The months of July, August and September are imperative for the farmers, and the non-availability of water would affect their livelihood. The dam is used to store water, and to raise the height would allow more water to be stored, which is against the award of the tribunal. This would allow Karnataka to use more water than allocated to it by the KWDT.

This The particular issues could have been decided in a shorter period of time, but due to the attitude of the Central government and the political agendas of the state parties, the matter took years to get resolved. It can be observed that though a mechanism to resolve water disputes has been provided, it has proved to be inefficient in the case. This is apparent in other water dispute cases as well, such as the Cauvery River Water Dispute[27] and in the case of the State of Haryana v. the State of Punjab.[28]

The Tribunal was constituted in 1962, and the award was passed in 1976. Further, a review was not done on time, leading to a delay of 10 years for the final award by KWDT-2. However, the AP government feels that the award favors Maharashtra and has appealed for want of a review of the award. Telangana, too, will be made a part of the dispute.
Thus, an an effective mechanism for river water disputes in India needs to be adopted.[29]

The Division was made in such a way that AP was not given the entire surplus flow of up to 448TMC the way it had been given before. Though the tribunal allocated AP the largest share of the surplus water, the State would only be able to use 190 TMC. Karnataka was allotted 177 TMC of surplus water and was also allowed to increase the height of the Almatti Dam by five meters to 524 meters. The increased height of the Almatti Dam would provide more water storage to Karnataka. Maharashtra was given 81TMC.

Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra were directed to utilize the water strictly in accordance with the allocations. The states were also directed to contribute 5TMC each for the supply of drinking water to Chennai. The Centre also decided to set up Krishna Waters Decision Implementation Board for implementing the directives. This award would be reviewed in 2050.[30]

Highlights of the latest order of the KWDT tribunal (Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal II)

  1. In a major setback to Telangana and Andhra Pradesh States, the Tribunal on sharing of Krishna waters (Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II) has made it clear that it would not take a relook into the allocation of water among the riparian States again but would take up distribution of Water allocation to combined AP to Telangana and the residuary AP States.
  2. The tribunal pronounced its judgment on the litigation prompted by AP and TS arguing that Section 89 in the AP Reorganizations The act meant redistribution of Krishna water among all the four riparian States Not just between them in New Delhi on Wednesday. In its verdict, the tribunal said Section 89 was not applicable to all four States but meant only for TS and AP.[31]
  3. Further, it has asked TS and AP to come before it on December 14 with claims on sharing of water between the two out of the The Allocation made for combined AP by the tribunal already. Accordingly, the two States are expected to reiterate their stand before the tribunal on December 14 along with putting forward their claims on the share of water, allocation of which has already been made but put on hold following a stay issued by the Supreme The court on publication of the award in the gazette.
  4. Maharashtra and Karnataka States strongly opposed redistribution of water based on Section 89 of the bifurcation act as argued for by TS and AP during the arguments held before the tribunal for over a year. Even the Centre has also taken a similar view and submitted to the tribunal that Section 89 was meant for the distribution of water only between TS and AP.[32]
  5. The government would chalk out its future course Of action after going through the judgment and taking the legal opinion. He, however, said the option of moving the Supreme Court against the tribunal Verdict on Section 89 was also open.
  6. He felt that though it appeared during the hearings that the tribunal would take a sympathetic view of the injustice done to Telangana on Krishna waters from the beginning but the verdict had made it clear that the tribunal had overlooked the contention of Telangana and have done injustice. to it. Our contentions and argument along with proof of injustice done and discrimination in the allocation of water by KWDT-II was not taken in the right Spirit by the tribunal, he opined.
  7. Meanwhile, irrigation experts have suggested that the State Government must approach the Supreme Court against the tribunal verdict on Section 89 as Krishna Basin was one large unit and any redistribution of water should take place among all the riparian States instead of just TS, AP as felt fit by the tribunal, whereby they plan on moving to Supreme Court to highlight the concerned injustice.


End-Notes:
[1] Barkatullah Khan, A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of The Inter-Sate River Water Disputes in India: A Review, Vol. XLVII (2), Indian Journal of Public Administration, 200.
[2] A.262, Constitution of India, 1949.
[3] D'Souza, Radha, Nation vs peoples: Interstate Water Disputes in India's Supreme Court. In Water and The Laws in India. ed. R. R. Iyer (2009)
[4] dr. Pandey, j.n. constitutional law of india. Central law agency. Allahabad. 47th edition. 2010.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Barkatullah Khan, A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of The Inter-Sate River Water Disputes in India: A Review, INDIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
[7] Ibid.
[8] D'Souza, Radha, Nation vs. peoples: Interstate Water Disputes in India's Supreme Court. In Water and The Laws in India. ed. R. R. Iyer (2009)
[9] Ibid.
[10] dr. Pandey, j.n. constitutional law of india. Central law agency. Allahabad. 47th edition. 2010.
[11]In the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal AIR (1992) SC 522.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Section 2(c) - " water dispute" means any dispute or difference between two or more State Governments with respect to--
(i) the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter- State river or river valley; or
(ii) the interpretation of the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters or the implementation of such agreement; or
(iii) the levy of any water rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in section 7.
[14] Clause (V) (C) relates to State of Andhra Pradesh and also allowing it to utilize remaining water without acquiring any right thereto whatsoever to use the same in any water year.
[15] Clause (XIV) (A) the Tribunal considered the demands of the party-States project wise.
[16] Delhi Judicial Services v. State of Gujarat AIR (1991) SC 2150.
[17] State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [1978]1SCR1.
[18] D'Souza, Radha, Nation vs peoples: Interstate water disputes in india's supreme court. In Water and the laws in India., pp. 58-93.
[19] State of Karnataka v. Union of India and Anr (1978) 2 SCR 1.
[20] State of Haryana v. State of Punjab [1977] 4 SCC 608.
[21] State of Karnataka v. UOI [1978]2SCR1.
[22] State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka 1991 SCR (2) 501.
[23] Barkatullah Khan, A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of The Inter-Sate River Water Disputes in India: A Review, Vol. XLVII (2), INDIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 200
[24] Delhi Judicial Services v. State of Gujarat AIR (1991) SC 2150.
[25] D'Souza, Radha, Nation vs peoples: Interstate Water Disputes in India's Supreme Court. In Water and The Laws in India. ed. R. R. Iyer (2009)
[26] Srinivas, Disputes, (De)Politicization And Democracy: Interstate Water Disputes In India, Rulnr (2012).
[27] State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka 1991 SCR (2) 501.
[28] State of Haryana v. State of Punjab [1977] 4 SCC 608.
[29] Barkatullah Khan, A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of The Inter-Sate River Water Disputes in India: A Review, indian journal of public administration.
[30] Delhi Judicial Services v. State of Gujarat AIR (1991) SC 2150.
[31] Srinivas, Disputes, (De)Politicization And Democracy: Interstate Water Disputes In India, Rulnr (2016).
[32] Ibid.

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...

Titile

Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

The Factories Act,1948

Titile

There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Constitution of India-Freedom of speech ...

Titile

Explain The Right To Freedom of Speech and Expression Under The Article 19 With The Help of Dec...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...

Titile

The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly