Hindustan Times (Patiala)

SC urges AG for settlement

-

The Supreme Court has asked attorney general KK Venugopal to look into the prospect of an amicable settlement of the decades-old dispute between Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh over payment of compensati­on relating to the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas power projects. The bench of justices RK Agrawal and AM Sapre directed the warring states to depute some responsibl­e officers on the date to be fixed by Venugopal for adjudicati­on of the long-drawn dispute in the top court.

The current dispute is an offshoot of the September 2011 verdict of the court in an original suit filed by Himachal Pradesh in 1996, seeking 7.19% of the total power generated from three hydro power projects, BhakraNang­al-Beas projects, situated in its territory with effect from November 1, 1966.

The apex court in its verdict had partly allowed Himachal Pradesh’s claim and directed the Centre to calculate the compensati­on amount and submit a report in consultati­on with the three states.

The court had on August 7, 2014, asked the AG to assist in the matter to resolve the issue amicably.

The Centre had filed its report in the case specifying how the compensati­on amount can be paid as per the 2011 decree of the court.

Himachal has claimed that a compensati­on of ₹4,249.45 crore is payable to it from Punjab and Haryana for the short supply of electricit­y from the date of actual supply and its entitlemen­t, as per the apex court verdict. The hilly state had stated it was entitled to ₹2,724 crore on account of the Bhakra projects, ₹1,033.54 crore in respect of Dehar power project and ₹491.89 crore with regard to the Pong project.

The Centre in its report had said that as per the apex court’s verdict, Himachal is entitled for compensati­on of ₹1,497 crore, about one-third of the claim.

The compensati­on amount claimed by HP was also disputed by Punjab and Haryana who had told the court that if it was entitled to 7.19% share of the total power from the projects with effect from November 1, 1966, then it should also share the constructi­on cost of these projects.

The Bhakra dam across the river Sutlej was proposed in 1944 in the then Bilaspur state. The constructi­on resulted in submergenc­e of a large territory of the Bilaspur state but benefitted the then province of Punjab. The then Raja of Bilaspur had agreed to the proposal for constructi­on of the Bhakra dam only on certain terms and conditions including payment of royalties for generation of power from the water of the reservoir of the Bhakra dam.

However, the formal agreement between the Raja of Bilaspur and the province of Punjab, could not be executed as the Bilaspur ceded to India in 1948. In 1954, Bilaspur and Himachal Pradesh were united to form a new state of Himachal under the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New States) Act, 1954. In 1966, Parliament enacted the Punjab Reorganisa­tion Act, which bifurcated the erstwhile Punjab into two states of Punjab and Haryana, and transferre­d some territorie­s of the erstwhile state to the then union territory of Himachal Pradesh. With effect from January 25, 1971, Himachal became a full-fledged state.

The apex court in its 2011 verdict had noted that the constructi­on of Bhakra dam had brought lot of benefits to the country and neighbouri­ng states like Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Chandigarh, but also resulted in submergenc­e of 27,869 acres of land in the erstwhile Bilaspur state out of the total 41,600 acres.

 ?? HT PHOTO ?? The dispute is an offshoot of the Sept 2011 verdict of the court in an original suit filed by Himachal Pradesh
HT PHOTO The dispute is an offshoot of the Sept 2011 verdict of the court in an original suit filed by Himachal Pradesh

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India