THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. Supreme Court, 16-02-2018
| Judge | HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
| Date | 16 February 2018 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYSTATE OF TAMIL NADU BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-002453-002453 / 2007 |
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2453 OF 2007
The State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary (s)
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu by its Chief Secretary & Ors. (s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2454 of 2007
State of Kerala through the Chief Secretary
to Government
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu through the Chief Secretary
to Government and others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2456 OF 2007
State of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary ...Appellant(s)
Public Works Department
Versus
State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary
Government of Karnataka & Ors.
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2018.02.16
13:09:50 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, CJI
I N D E X
S. No.
Heading
Page No.
A.
The proceedings in this Court in the present
Appeals
6
B.
Maintainability of the Appeals by Special
Leave
18
C.
Stand of all parties pertaining to remand of
the matter to the Tribunal after deliberation
of the legal issues
21
D.
Reference of the dispute to the Tribunal
24
E.
The initial proceedings before the Tribunal
29
F.
The issue of Ordinance by the State of
Karnataka and the Presidential Reference
34
G.
The genesis of the controversy
50
H.
Doctrine of Paramountcy and its extinction
on coming into force of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947
74
I.
Infraction of Article 363 and non-
maintainability of the dispute on the basis of
agreements
108
J.
Unconscionability of the 1892 and 1924
agreements
133
K.
Status of the agreements after coming into
force of the States Reorganization Act, 1956
147
3
L.
Issue relating to expiry of the agreements
164
M.
Did the complaint not require any
adjudication?
179
N.
The approach adopted by the Tribunal post
1974 and correctness of the same
183
O.
The quintessence of pleadings before the
Tribunal
197
P.
The findings of the Tribunal on various
issues
215
P.1
Prescriptive rights and other claims
215
P.2
Breach of agreements of 1892 and 1924
and consequences thereof
217
P.3
Peripheral issues qua claims of Kerala
and Union Territory of Pondicherry
(presently named as Puducherry)
219
P.4
Gross water available for apportionment
222
P.4(i)
Surface flow of water
222
P.4(ii)
Identification of dependable yield
228
P.4(iii)
Additional source of water
231
P.5
The principles of apportionment
241
P.6
Determination of "irrigated areas" in
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
255
P.7
Assessment of water for "irrigation
needs" in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
269
P.8
Assessment of water for "Domestic and
Industrial Purposes" in Tamil Nadu and
297
To continue reading
Request your trial