SYL land de-notification illegal, unconstitutional

[related-post]

The resolution read: “This House passes a motion against the one-sided, unconstitutional move of Punjab which is denying the authority of the Supreme Court, is against the rights of Haryana and only for political gains. The House requests the Central government to reject the illegal and unconstitutional move of Punjab. Further, the Central government is requested that steps for taking to conclusion the hearing on the Presidential reference in Supreme Court and construction of the SYL so that the rights of the people of Haryana can be protected.”

Dhankar said the dispute had a long history of over three decades and that Haryana continued to suffer because there was a shortage of drinking water as well. “Of 126 blocks in Haryana, 71 are overexploited in groundwater. The situation is so grave,” he said, adding “that river water can be availed after 32 days for a period of eight days. It has become difficult to fulfill the needs of drinking water. The availability of water from Yamuna has also reduced, despite which Haryana is supplying water to Delhi.”

Dhankar said the Punjab government had in 2004 annulled the water-sharing pact on its own. The House had unanimously passed resolutions in the years 2011 and 2014 condemning the “unilateral” and “unconstitutional” act of Punjab.

He said that despite the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Haryana, the state did not get its share of water and the hearing on the Presidential Reference is going on. Still, the Punjab government went ahead and passed this Bill in the Assembly, he added.

Calling it a “patently illegal act’ by Punjab and “in utter contempt of the Indian Constitution, federal structure of the country and the rule of law”, Dhankar said it was “a sinister move of the Punjab government having dangerous potential to undermine the unity and integrity of this country”.

The Minister said that despite the Government of India orders in 1976, Tripartite agreement among the states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan in 1981, Rajiv Longowal Accord in 1995 and two decisions of the Supreme Court 2002 and 2004, Haryana has been deprived of more than half of its legitimate share of 3.50 MAF in surplus Ravi Beas water, which has resulted in reduction in agriculture production to the tune of 8 lakh tonnes of foodgrains every year, causing a perpetual annual loss of about Rs 1,000 crors.

Talking to the media after the session, Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar said he tried to speak to his Punjab counterpart Parkash Singh Badal,but he was busy with the Punjab Assembly. “I will speak to Mr Badal and will definitely convey my displeasure over the issue,” he said.

Politicking over the issue was witnessed in the Assembly with parties seeking credit for the work done over the years for construction of SYL and blaming each other for its non-completion.

INLD MLA Jaswinder Singh Sandhu said there is a BJP government at the Centre and the party is in coalition with the Shiromani Akali Dal in Punjab. “BJP should clarify its stand on the issue. The party in Punjab is party to the decisions of the Punjab government. They are saying water will not be given to Haryana. The rights of the people of Haryana should be protected,” he said.

Haryana Janhit MLA Kuldeep Bishnoi, meanwhile, said it was former CM Bhajan Lal who got most work done on the SYL, including getting the foundation stone laid. Bishnoi too asked BJP to clarify its stand on the issue.

Targeting the INLD, he said everyone knows that the Badals and Chautalas shared close ties.

Haryana Finance Minister Captain Abhimanyu said that instead of trying to get political mileage, the resolution should be unanimously approved.

Earlier in the day, in his address, Haryana Governor Kaptan Singh Solanki had stated that the government was committed to obtain its legitimate share of Ravi-Beas Waters and the completion of SYL.

He further said that concerted efforts had been made for early hearing of Presidential Reference which had remained pending for more than 11 years. The efforts have borne fruit and the matter has now been taken up for regular hearing in the SC.