Alamatti dam height can be raised to 519.6 m

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, APRIL 25. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today in the river `Krishna Water Dispute-Alamatti dam case' observed that it was open to the State of Karnataka to raise the height of the `Alamatti dam' to 519.6 metres subject to appropriate clearances including environmental clearance from the Central authorities concerned.

Any of the riparian States of the Krishna river basin could approach the Central Government to refer any concerned dispute (relating the sharing of the Krishna waters as per the Bachawat Tribunal award and other related issues) to the Tribunal under relevant Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, 1956, the Bench said. In this context, it referred to a plea of the Solicitor- General (during the hearing of the case) that, if any of the riparian states made a complaint in the matter of sharing of the river water, the Centre would be willing to refer the same to a Tribunal under the ISWD Act.

The Bachawat reward of 1973 and 1976 is open for review after May, 2000.

The Bench held that the `Scheme B' of the Bachawat Award was not a ``decision'' of the Tribunal and that, therefore, the same was not implementable under relevant provisions of the ISWD Act.

The Bench, through four separate and concurring judgments was disposing of two original suits filed by the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

The main judgment was delivered Mr. Justice G. B. Pattanaik with whose conclusions Mr. Justice S. B. Majmudar, Mr. Justice V. N. Khare, Mr. Justice U. C. Banerjee and Mr. Justice R. P. Sethi agreed. Mr. Justice Majmudar, Mr. Justice U. C. Banerjee and Mr. Justice R. P. Sethi also pronounced separate judgments giving their respective reasons.

The suit from Karnataka - requested the Court inter alia to direct the Centre to notify `Scheme B' - (surplus water) - of the award of the Krishna water dispute Tribunal (Bachawat Tribunal) and make provision for establishment of Krishna Valley Authority (KVA) and for implementation of directions of the Tribunal in its 1973 report and 1976 Further Report, as contemplated under Section 6 A of the ISWD Act.

The suit from A.P. sought inter alia the Court's directions to Karnataka and others concerned (respondents) restraining them from raising the height of the Alamatti dam (in Karnataka) from 509 metres to 524 metres and also from proceeding with further construction in respect of certain other specified projects, as otherwise, according to the plea, Karnataka would be utilising more than its share of water (allocated to it under `Scheme A'). The Bench noted that there was no iota of restriction on the height of the dam in the award of the Tribunal. However, the Bench adverted to a report of an expert committee - appointed sometime ago by four Chief Ministers - which suggested that the height of the dam could be raised to 519 metres.

The Bench adverted to a plea of Maharashtra that before Karnataka being permitted to raise the height of the dam to 524 metres the issues relating to `submergence' of considerable areas of the land in Maharashtra on the basis of the on-going surveys by experts had to be gone into, from the point of relief and rehabilitation of a large number of people to be affected. The Bench said that as this was a `water dispute', it was for Maharashtra to approach the Centre for referring the same to a decision of the Tribunal.

The Bench observed that Apex Court had jurisdiction to entertain the two suits (as the pleas raised sought implementation of the adjudicated decision of the Bachawat Tribunal) under Article 131 of the Constitution.

(The Bench did not agree with a plea of the Centre that both the suits were not maintainable for want of jurisdiction under Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the ISWD Act).

(Under Article 262 of the Constitution read with Section 11 of the ISWD Act, ``neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction'' in respect of any dispute or complaint ``with respect to the use, distribution or control of waters of, or in, any inter- State river or river valley'', etc.).

The allocation of respective shares of water under `Scheme A' of the award of the Tribunal was an `en bloc basis' and not project wise, the Bench held.

As A.P., the lower riparian State, was given the liberty to use `surplus water' under `Scheme A' without claiming any right over the use of such water, the Bench said that the Centre should not grant any permission to the State to proceed with any new large projects.

Under `Scheme A', the Tribunal in its award (delivered over two decades ago) allocated 800 tmc, 700 tmc and 560 tmc of the Krishna river water to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, respectively, in a water year, on the basis of 75 per cent dependability.

Under `Scheme B' of the award, specified proportions of shares of these three states were subject to change from year to year depending on the availability of `total water' in a given water year.

The Bench, while dismissing the Karnataka suit, also declined to give permanent mandatory injunction as sought for by A.P. (in its suit) against Karnataka in the matter of raising the height of the dam to 524 metres.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Regional
Previous : Bihar House suggests changes to statehood Bill
Next     : Karnataka orders brisk work at Alamatti dam