New Delhi The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Centre to carry out a survey on a portion of land in Punjab meant for the construction of the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal as per a 2002 court decree, and directed that a report to be submitted in three months on the status of construction and availability of water for the canal.

Hearing a suit filed by Haryana, which is seeking the execution of a top court verdict of January 15, 2002 that directed Punjab to construct the canal, a bench headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked the Centre to again mediate between the two states to amicably resolve the water-sharing dispute.

The bench, also comprising justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, said, “We would like the Union of India to survey the portion of land in Punjab allocated for the SYL project and to ensure the land is protected.” The order further required the Centre to give an estimate of how much construction work has been carried out on the 121km stretch required to be completed for the project within one year of the 2002 judgment.

The court involved the Centre as there were varied estimates given by Punjab on the status of construction. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Punjab along with advocate Jagjit Singh Chabra, informed the court that the need for constructing the canal needs a re-look as there is no excess water in the Beas and Sutlej rivers, from which Haryana’s annual average allocation of 3.5 MAF (million acre feet) must be met.

The state acquired land from farmers for construction of the canal, but in 2004 the then Punjab government led by Prakash Singh Badal brought the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act (PTAA) which sought to unilaterally end the state’s commitment to supply water to Haryana as per a 1981 agreement that was approved by the top court in 2002.

The state law was termed invalid by the Supreme Court in 2016. But Punjab has argued that the 2016 decision was an advisory opinion given by the top court on a Presidential reference, and the 2004 law still holds the field. Under this law, the state has said that it has even returned land to the original landowners.

Confronted by these submissions, the bench told Dwivedi, “Your state (Punjab) must find a solution, otherwise, however unpalatable it may be, we have to find a solution.”

Posting the matter in January second week, the bench added, “You cannot violate the court order and say farmers are now in possession of the land.”

When Dwivedi said that besides pressure from farmers, there is political opposition within the state, the bench replied: “For everything there is political pressure. We have restrained ourselves this time but don’t test that scenario where we are compelled to take a harsh view.”

The court also told the Centre to verify the statement made by Punjab about less availability of water while clarifying that it cannot deal with distribution of water between the two states as the present proceedings are restricted to implementing the 2002 order.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, filed an affidavit that efforts to mediate between the two states had failed to make progress. “We are facilitating a meeting pursuant to the Court order of March 23,” Bhati said, referring to a letter of August 25 addressed by the central government to chief ministers of both states to facilitate a meeting.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing Haryana, informed the court that chief minister of the state wrote to his Punjab counterpart to fix a meeting to decide on the course of action to execute the 2002 order. The Punjab chief minister responded on October 3 that he was willing to resolve the issue amicably without compromising the interests of the state.

The Punjab government had written a letter to the Centre on April 17 indicating reduced availability of water. The same letter urged the Union government to consider an earlier request to expand the terms of reference of the recently revived Ravi-Beas tribunal to include water sharing through SYL canal as well. Haryana, on the other hand, claimed that an independent tribunal should be constituted to resolve the outstanding water issue between the two states.

The water dispute between the two states reached the Supreme Court in 1996 when Haryana filed a suit against Punjab. The court order of January 15, 2002 ruled in favour of Haryana and directed Punjab to construct the SYL canal within a year. But the issue has remained unresolved. The court has attempted to get both states to the talking table by roping in the Centre. Upset over the failed attempts to resolve the issue, the court advised both sides in March to adopt a “give and take” approach to end the logjam.