Inter-State water awards bind only when independently implementable; contingent schemes are not enforceable, and enbloc allocation prevailed.

Only the tribunal's final, independently implementable adjudication became binding on publication under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act; contingent directions dependent on future agreement or legislation did not. Scheme 'B' was therefore not enforceable, while Scheme 'A' constituted the binding award. A proceeding seeking enforcement of that adjudicated right was treated as distinct from a fresh inter-State water dispute and was not barred by Article 262 or Section 11. The tribunal's Krishna water allocation was enbloc, not project-wise, except where specific restrictions were expressly stated. On the Almatti dam, construction up to FRL 519.6 m was left open subject to lawful clearances, but raising it to FRL 524.256 m was not supported on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Scheme 'B' formulated by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal formed part of the final decision capable of notification and enforcement; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956; (iii) Whether the tribunal's allocation of Krishna waters was project-wise or enbloc; (iv) Whether the proposed raising of Almatti dam to FRL 524.256 m could be restrained, and whether construction up to FRL 519.6 m could be permitted.

Issue (i): Whether Scheme 'B' formulated by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal formed part of the final decision capable of notification and enforcement.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 5(2) of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 requires the tribunal to forward its decision on the matters referred to it, and Section 6 makes only that decision final and binding upon publication. Scheme 'A' was the implementable adjudication embodied in the final order. Scheme 'B' was expressly made contingent on the constitution of a Krishna Valley Authority by agreement of the States or by legislation, and the tribunal itself stated that it could not be implemented by its own order. A scheme that is not capable of independent implementation and is left to future agreement or legislation is not the tribunal's binding decision under Section 5(2).

Conclusion: Scheme 'B' was not part of the tribunal's final decision and was not enforceable as such.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Analysis: The plaint sought enforcement of an adjudicated award and directions to give effect to the binding decision already rendered by the tribunal. It did not seek adjudication of a fresh water dispute falling within Section 2(c) and Section 3. A proceeding for implementation of an existing adjudication is distinct from a fresh dispute over use, distribution, or control of inter-State waters. On the pleadings and reliefs claimed, the suit was treated as one for enforcement of an adjudicated right rather than a barred water dispute.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred and was maintainable under Article 131.

Issue (iii): Whether the tribunal's allocation of Krishna waters was project-wise or enbloc.

Analysis: The tribunal's final order allocated the dependable flow among the States in gross quantities, subject to specified restrictions in particular clauses. The tribunal examined project reports only to assess reasonable needs and to determine equitable apportionment, not to earmark fixed quantities to individual projects across the basin. The final order used negative ceilings on State-wise use and certain specific sub-basin restrictions, but did not impose a project-wise ceiling for the Upper Krishna Project or similar projects unless expressly mentioned. The earlier clarification proceedings also reflected acceptance of the allocation as enbloc.

Conclusion: The allocation was enbloc and not project-wise, except where the order expressly imposed specific restrictions.

Issue (iv): Whether the proposed raising of Almatti dam to FRL 524.256 m could be restrained, and whether construction up to FRL 519.6 m could be permitted.

Analysis: No express prohibition against construction of Almatti dam at a particular height was found in the tribunal's binding decision, and the controversy over 524.256 m had not been adjudicated by the tribunal. At the same time, the materials on record, including the expert committee material and the project documents relied on by Karnataka, showed that FRL 519.6 m would meet the then-existing requirement of the Upper Krishna Project. The higher level of 524.256 m was linked to the contingent implementation of Scheme 'B', which had not become enforceable. The court therefore declined to permit construction at 524.256 m on the existing record, while making clear that raising the dam up to 519.6 m was not barred, subject to clearances under law.

Conclusion: Construction up to FRL 519.6 m was permitted subject to statutory clearances, but raising the dam to FRL 524.256 m was not allowed on the existing record.

Final Conclusion: The tribunal's binding award operated only through Scheme 'A' and the allocation made thereunder. The suits could proceed as enforcement-related proceedings, but Scheme 'B' could not be compelled as a binding award. On the dam-height controversy, the higher proposal was rejected on the existing material, while limited construction up to FRL 519.6 m was left open subject to lawful approvals.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, only that part of a tribunal's pronouncement which is itself a final, independently implementable adjudication becomes binding on publication under Section 6; contingent observations or schemes dependent on future agreement or legislation do not acquire the character of enforceable decisions.

---