SC status quo on SYL canal land

• Status quo shall be maintained by the parties, subject to further orders of this court
• For the present, nobody in possession of the land, etc, in question as on today would be dispossessed before the next date of hearing
• The Union Home Secretary and Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP will file a report within a week on the “ground situation” in respect of the land

The Supreme Court of India has  ordered “status quo on the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal land and issued notice to Punjab and the Centre on Haryana’s plea for Ravi-Beas waters. It also appointed the Union Home Secretary and Punjab Chief Secretary and Director General of Police as court receivers of the canal land and asked them to file a report within a week on the “ground situation”.

“Status quo as of today shall be maintained by the parties, subject to further orders of this court,” a Bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy said.

Posting the case for December 15, it clarified that “for the present, nobody in possession of the lands, etc, in question as on today would be dispossessed before the next date of hearing”.

As the apex court has not altered the present status, Punjab farmers would retain possession of the land, at least for now. The Punjab Government returned the acquired land to the farmers through a notification issued on November 16 on the strength of a resolution passed in the Assembly and a Cabinet decision. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar supported the status quo order. Arguing for Haryana, senior counsel Shyam Divan questioned the validity of the November 16 notification. He said a five-member Constitution Bench of the SC had ruled on November 10 that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, was in violation of the Constitution, the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 and the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966, besides being against two apex court judgments delivered on January 15, 2002, and June 4, 2004. Answering the presidential reference on the validity of the 2004 Act, the Constitution Bench had also held that the Assembly had no power to enact any law to nullify the apex court’s decree in favour of Haryana.

It was clear from the SC ruling on the 2004 Act that the November 16 notification, which was only an executive action, had no legal sanctity, Divan pleaded and contended that the Union Home Secretary and Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP, who were appointed court receivers of the canal land on March 17, 2016, while hearing the presidential reference, continued to be receivers.