Sutlej Yamuna link canal - Revision history

Jyoti: /* An overview */

2023-11-26T19:38:36Z

‎An overview

Jyoti: /* An overview */

2023-11-26T19:37:56Z

‎An overview

Jyoti: /* An overview */

2023-11-26T19:37:10Z

‎An overview

Pdewan: /* History */

2023-10-08T18:53:55Z

‎History

Shivam: /* History */

2017-10-02T04:25:39Z

‎History

Shivam: /* Presidential reference sought SC view in 2004 */

2017-10-02T04:11:05Z

‎Presidential reference sought SC view in 2004

Jyoti: /* Punjab denotifies SYL land again in Nov 2016 */

2017-02-23T04:49:06Z

‎Punjab denotifies SYL land again in Nov 2016

Pdewan: /* Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act 2004, unconstitutional: SC/ 2016 */

2016-11-16T09:31:28Z

‎Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act 2004, unconstitutional: SC/ 2016

Pdewan: /* Judicial intervention */

2016-11-11T15:12:05Z

‎Judicial intervention

Jyoti at 22:25, 10 November 2016

2016-11-10T22:25:18Z

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 The Haryana government had filed a petition in the Supreme Court for an early hearing on the presidential reference in the SYL case which had been pending till November 2016.
 ==1981: CM Darbara Singh contemplated resignation==
 [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/81-cm-thought-of-quitting-toed-cong-line/articleshow/104174778.cms  IP Singh, Oct 5, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 74: / Line 75: @@
 SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]
 [[Category:Rivers|S SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANALSUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL
 SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 The Haryana government had filed a petition in the Supreme Court for an early hearing on the presidential reference in the SYL case which had been pending till November 2016.
-==1981: CM Darbara Singh contemplated resignation== [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/81-cm-thought-of-quitting-toed-cong-line/articleshow/104174778.cms  IP Singh, Oct 5, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
+==1981: CM Darbara Singh contemplated resignation==
@@ Line 64: / Line 65: @@
 SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]
 [[Category:Rivers|S SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL
 SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 The Haryana government had filed a petition in the Supreme Court for an early hearing on the presidential reference in the SYL case which had been pending till November 2016.
-[[Category:India|S
+==1981: CM Darbara Singh contemplated resignation== [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/81-cm-thought-of-quitting-toed-cong-line/articleshow/104174778.cms  IP Singh, Oct 5, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
 SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|S
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|S SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL
 SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL
-[[Category:Rivers|S
+SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]
 SUTLEJ YAMUNA LINK CANAL]]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 =History=
 '''Source''': The Hindu
 [[File: A brief history , India Today , November 28,2016 .jpg| A brief history , India Today , November 28,2016 |frame|500px]]
@@ Line 38: / Line 39: @@
 The Haryana government had filed a petition in the Supreme Court for an early hearing on the presidential reference in the SYL case which had been pending till November 2016.
 =Judicial intervention=

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 =History=
 '''Source''': The Hindu
+[[File: A brief history , India Today , November 28,2016 .jpg| A brief history , India Today , November 28,2016 |frame|500px]]
 . [http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/haryana-punjab-set-for-faceoff-on-syl-canal/article8343772.ece ''The Hindu''], March 12, 2016

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 =Judicial intervention=
 == Presidential reference sought SC view in 2004==
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Presidential-reference-sought-SC-view-in-2004-11112016023014    Presidential reference sought SC view in 2004, Nov 11 2016 : The Times of India]
@@ Line 51: / Line 52: @@
 The first meaningful hearing, after the issuance of notices, took place on February 29 this year, after nearly 12 years. A five-judge bench headed by Justice A R Dave concluded hearing and reserved verdict on May 12 2016. The judgment was pronounced after six months on November 10 2016.
 ==Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act 2004, unconstitutional: SC/ 2016==
 [http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-holds-invalid-2004-punjab-law-to-return-syl-canal-land-to-its-farmers/article9328728.ece ''The Hindu''], November 11, 2016

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:49, 23 February 2017
Line 92:		Line 92:

	“Last time, the SC was in the process of hearing the matter. Now, the ruling has come. The government can use its administrative power to release the land. We can say people of Punjab don't want the canal and don't want to share river waters,“ said a government official.		“Last time, the SC was in the process of hearing the matter. Now, the ruling has come. The government can use its administrative power to release the land. We can say people of Punjab don't want the canal and don't want to share river waters,“ said a government official.
		+
		+	==Maintain law and order: SC tells Punjab, Haryana==
		+	[http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/maintain-law-and-order-supreme-court-tells-punjab-haryana/article17348658.ece Court sticks to its decision on Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal, February 23, 2017: The Hindu]
		+
		+
		+	Even as Punjab denied any liability on its part to share water with Haryana, the Supreme Court stood firm by its decision to construct the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal and urged the neighbouring States to maintain law and order at any cost.
		+
		+	A Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy raised concern about violence after reports that the Indian National Lok Dal, Haryana’s main opposition party, had asked its workers to gather on Thursday at Ambala and march inside Punjab to start digging the SYL canal.
		+
		+	'''Status quo'''
		+
		+	The Supreme Court’s call for status quo in the inter-State water dispute came amidst Punjab’s affidavit that the Punjab Termination of Water Agreement Act of 2004 was still in force. It argued that a recent Supreme Court verdict that declared the 2004 Act as unconstitutional was only an opinion given by the court on a presidential reference and not a verdict as such to be complied as law.
		+
		+	Haryana, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, submitted that the verdict allowing the SYL canal to be built has to be executed.
		+
		+	The court asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, for the Centre, that the Union government should don the role of an arbitrator if both sides were willing to settle their dispute amicably.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:31, 16 November 2016
Line 77:		Line 77:

	The 2016 Bill, which is yet to receive the assent of the Governor, assumed to give back over 5000 acres of land acquired for the canal back to the Punjab farmers. The apex court opined that this Bill would have clearly violated the 1981 water-sharing agreement had it been made law.		The 2016 Bill, which is yet to receive the assent of the Governor, assumed to give back over 5000 acres of land acquired for the canal back to the Punjab farmers. The apex court opined that this Bill would have clearly violated the 1981 water-sharing agreement had it been made law.
		+	== Punjab denotifies SYL land again in Nov 2016==
		+	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Punjab-denotifies-SYL-land-16112016013017 Rohan Dua, Punjab denotifies SYL land, Nov 16 2016 : The Times of India]
		+
		+
		+	All 5,376 Acres Returned Free Of Cost To 4,980 Farmers
		+
		+	Continuing with its ''' defiance of the Supreme Court ruling ''' on the Satluj Yamuna Link Canal, the Punjab government on Nov 15, 2016 denotified the land acquired for the canal from farmers and gave it back to them. All 5,376 acres were returned free of cost at a time when assembly elections are expected to be held in early 2017.
		+
		+	This is the second time in seven months that the land has been denotified. The Parkash Singh Badal government had first denotified it through a resolution on March 10 2016 and passed a bill in the Punjab assembly the next day . At the time, the Haryana government had moved the SC which had ordered status quo till it gave its ruling.
		+
		+	This time, however, the Punjab government relied on the revenue powers with an IAS officer to make the denotification public. The powers state that the state government can carry out survey and settlement operations of each revenue estate and distribute land holdings.The government was in the process of issuing the notification from the office of Punjab financial commissioner (revenue) K B S Sidhu to 4,980 farmers. The decision to use executive powers was taken at a special Cabinet meeting on Tuesday .
		+
		+	In its March 2016 order, the SC had made the entire land its case property and warned Punjab police chief and chief secretary of action if the canal land was dug up or returned to farmers before its final decision. A five-judge bench of the SC on November 10 ruled that Punjab had no right to terminate water sharing agreements with its neighboring states, thereby invalidating the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 passed by then Congress government of Captain Amarinder Singh. SC had also restored the decree passed by it in 2004 which had directed the central government to take control of the canal construction from the Punjab government.
		+
		+	“Last time, the SC was in the process of hearing the matter. Now, the ruling has come. The government can use its administrative power to release the land. We can say people of Punjab don't want the canal and don't want to share river waters,“ said a government official.