In an attempt to divest its neighbouring states from getting share from Punjab's river waters, the state assembly today unanimously passed a bill against the construction of contentious Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal providing transfer of proprietary rights back to the land owners free of cost.
Leader of House and Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal moved the 'Punjab Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal land (transfer of proprietary right) Bill' with the objective "to provide for transfer of proprietary rights to the land owners from whom the land was acquired by the state government for the construction of SYL."
Moving the Bill, Badal said "the Bill had been taken on priority basis as Punjab had no surplus waters to share it with other states."
He said that a water crisis existed in Punjab and "if a drop of water flow to other states from rivers of Punjab it will be very dangerous for the state."
"The SYL will never be constructed," Badal observed adding that "the government will not take money back from the farmers whose land was acquired rather their land will be returned back to them free of cost."
Badal said around 3928 acres of land, acquired in the past for the construction of SYL, will be given back to farmers free of cost.
The Bill concerning the vexed issue of construction of SYL canal through which Punjab's rivers waters had to flow to neighbouring Haryana was adopted by the assembly in 15 minutes.
Leader of Opposition Charanjit Singh Channi backed the Bill on behalf of his Congress party.
Channi, however, said Congress protests the Centre's stand against Punjab and in favour of Haryana on the SYL issue in the Supreme Court.
"Congress party is against any conditions imposed on farmers by the government in returning them back," he said.
"In fact Congress was first to give a notice on the SYL issue to the Speaker of the assembly," he said.
Today's development comes as another turning point in the 61 year old water dispute between the northern states after the first agreement signed in 1955 which was followed by a number of agreements, including the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, 1966 Punjab Reorganization Act, the 1981 Indira Gandhi and 1985 Rajiv Longowal Accord besides litigations in the Supreme Court, the first one being in 1976 when Punjab took the initiative in approaching the Apex Court.
(REOPENS DEL 41)
Speaker Charanjit Singh Atwal said the notice given by the Congress party was rejected earlier.
Congress notice did not mention any such condition that land be returned back to farmers without claiming cost from them, he said.
Earlier, referring to the Water Termination Agreement Act brought by the previous Capt Amarinder Singh government in 2004, Badal said the "Akalis had supported the move at every point."
Urging the opposition to cooperate on the matter, Badal said "we should join hands with hearts on this issue."
Joining the issue, Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal said that "it was clear that the land of farmers will be returned free of cost."
However, Channi along with his flock created a ruckus during the passage of Bill asserting that any conditions on famers must be removed in the event of returning their land acquired for the purpose of construction of SYL.
A Congress legislator Jagmohan Singh Kang went to the well of the House and staged a sit-in for a brief period even as the Bill was passed.
The Bill entails to provide for transfer of proprietary rights to the land owners from whom land was acquired by the state government for the construction of SYL.
"Whereas the state of Punjab as a sovereign authority in federal structure of the constitution of India and being a welfare state of the union of India takes great pride to protect the interest of its inhabitants," the Bill says.
The state government shall notify suitable machinery for settlement of claims of any landowner or any other party, the Bill says adding no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the state government or any person for anything which is done in good faith or intend to be done in pursuance of this Act.
Section 8 of the Bill empowers the state government to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Later, during the zero hour sharp exchanges took place between treasury and opposition benches over the issue of construction of SYL.
Congress member Sunil Kumar Jakhar noted that by passing the Bill the matter is not over. "You (government) will have to show vision...It is a matter of entire Punjab...We should go together to the Centre on the matter," he said.
Another Congress member Laal Singh apprehended that Hansi Butana Canal passes through Punjab and enters in Haryana near Samana and then re-enters Punjab.
"What will happen if Haryana creates a breach in the canal," he said.
The Bill will go the Governor Kaptan Singh Solanki this evening itself, official sources said.
The Chief Minister will lead all Punjab MLAs to Raj
Bhavan to meet the Governor for assent to SYL bill
He will request immediate assent to the bill, an official spokesman said.
The water dispute between the northern states continues even 61 years after the first agreement signed in 1955 which was followed by a number of agreements, including the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, 1966 Punjab Reorganization Act, the 1981 Indira Gandhi award as also 1985 Rajiv Longowal Accord besides litigations in the Supreme Court, the first one being in 1976 when Punjab took the initiative in approaching the Apex Court.
As per the agreement of 1955, signed between the states of Punjab, Pepsu, Jammu and Kashmir and Rajasthan, Punjab (including Pepsu) was allocated 7.20 Million Acre Feet (MAF) surplus waters of the Ravi and Beas estimated at 15.85 MAF, based on flow series of 1921-45, excluding pro-partition use, Rajasthan was allocated 8.0 MAF and Jammu and Kashmir 0.65 MAF.
Haryana was carved out on the reorganization of erstwhile state of Punjab on November 1, 1966, and as per Section 78 of the Reorganization Act of 1966, the right to receive and to utilize the waters available for distribution, as a result of the Bhakra Nangal Project and Beas Project, became the right of the successor states in such proportion as may be made by an agreement entered into by the said states after consultation with the Central Government.
This Section also provided that if no such agreement was entered into within two years of the appointed day, the Central Government may by orders determine the shares of the States having regard to the purpose of the projects. Since the state of Punjab and Haryana could not arrive at any amicable settlement, Government of India by its notification dated March 24, 1976, determined the distribution of waters of Ravi and Beas among the states of Haryana, Punjab and Delhi.
As per the 1976 notification Haryana was allocated 3.5 MAF, Punjab 3.5 MAF and Delhi 0.2 MAF out of the total water of 7.2 MAF to be allocated amongst the three from the total available of 15.2 MAF of the water of the Sutlej, Ravi and Beas. The remaining water was to go to other states, including Jammu and Kashmir.
(REOPENS DES 43)
Due to continuous delay in the completion of the
canal, Haryana is unable to fully utilise about three lakh hectares of irrigation potential already created in the state and is losing incremental agricultural production of over eight lakh tones per annum amounting to several crore of rupees besides having drinking water scarcity in several parts of the State.
After all the efforts of Haryana to persuade Punjab directly and through the Union Government to get the SYL Canal completed did not materialise, Haryana approached the Apex Court through suit No 1 of 1995 filed in November 1995.
The suit was refilled as suit No 6 of 1996 after issuance of notices under section 80 C P C. The hearings of this case were held in the Apex Court during the year 1996 to 2001.
The Supreme Court passed an order on January 15, 2002 and directed Punjab Government that SYL Canal in Punjab portion should be completed within a period of one year.
In case state of Punjab fails to accomplish the task within the stipulated period, then the Union Government should get the work done through its own agencies as expeditiously as possible.
Punjab enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 just two days before the July 15,2004 deadline when the Centre was to take over physical possession of the Canal from Punjab Irrigation Department and hand over the construction to the CPWD for completion of the disputed Canal.
Punjab had all along maintained that "justice" should be done as per the recognised international riparian laws. The state had taken the stand that endeavour should be to determine
the share of Punjab rivers on acknowledged principles of distribution and allocation between the "riparian" states, namely, on the basis of the equitable share of each state.
Interestingly, none of the states that have been a party to the unsolved issue is a riparian state, except Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. The other non-riparian states are Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi.
