Canal construction enforcement, not a barred water dispute, justifies mandatory relief to secure allocated water supply.

A suit seeking completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was not barred as a referable water dispute because the core grievance concerned enforcement of a binding obligation to complete canal construction, not adjudication of river water rights. The Court held that the earlier allocation of Haryana's share and the settlement framework separately preserved the canal-completion obligation, so Article 262 and Section 11 did not exclude jurisdiction. It further held that the agreements and governmental arrangements created an enforceable duty to finish the canal, and granted a mandatory injunction directing completion, with the Union of India required to secure implementation if Punjab failed to act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was barred as a "water dispute" under the constitutional and statutory bar on judicial jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction directing completion of the unfinished canal portion and consequential implementation by the Union of India if necessary.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal was barred as a "water dispute" under the constitutional and statutory bar on judicial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute was examined on the basis of the plaint as a whole and the relief sought. The essential grievance was not about adjudication of the use, distribution or control of river waters, but about enforcement of the obligation to complete the canal facility needed to carry water already allocated to Haryana. The Court noted that the earlier allocation under Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and the later agreement of 31 December 1981 had fixed Haryana's share, and that paragraph 9.3 of the Punjab Settlement separately dealt with continuation of the canal construction. Parliament's enactment of Section 14 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 referred only the matters in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 to the tribunal, not the canal construction issue in paragraph 9.3. On that footing, the canal-construction dispute was treated as distinct from a referable water dispute.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Article 262 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction directing completion of the unfinished canal portion and consequential implementation by the Union of India if necessary.

Analysis: The Court held that the agreements and governmental determinations, followed by withdrawal of the earlier suits, created a binding obligation to complete the canal. It found that the canal had already been substantially constructed, substantial public funds had been spent, and the existing canal system could not carry the full quantity allocated to Haryana. The Court rejected the contention that political difficulty or changed state policy could defeat the obligation arising from the earlier arrangements and from Parliament's recognition of the settlement framework. It further held that the Union of India had a constitutional duty to ensure compliance and could be directed to act through its own agencies if Punjab failed to complete the work within the time fixed by the Court.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction, and the direction to complete the canal was issued against the State of Punjab with a further obligation on the Union of India to secure implementation if needed.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded in full on the substantive relief sought, with a judicial mandate requiring completion of the canal so that Haryana could draw its allocated share of water.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute to enforce construction of a canal required for conveying water already allocated under a binding inter-governmental arrangement is not, by itself, a "water dispute" barred from judicial adjudication; where the obligation to complete the work is established and the balance of convenience supports enforcement, a mandatory injunction may issue to secure compliance.

---