Haryana seeks Supreme Court’s intervention to stop the Bill
TIA NEWS /
In a controversial move , the Punjab Vidhan Sabha today passed the Punjab Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal Land (Transfer of Property Rights) Bill 2016 unanimously. The Bill was introduced by Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal after the Question Hour.
The Bill seeks to return 3,928 acres of land free of cost to the original landowners. The Bill was passed unanimously in the House, although a war for credit was seen between the Opposition and Treasury benches over who had floated the idea of returning the land.
Leader of Opposition Charanjit Singh Channi claimed that he had proposed to bring an amendment on the issue but his idea was hijacked by the government. However, Vidhan Sabha speaker Charanjit Singh Atwal maintained that he had not received any such amendment.
The state government will notify the terms and conditions for transfers of land and record rights will stand amended and automatically modified by the revenue authorities concerned. Suitable machinery will also be notified by the state government to set all claims of landowners. No suit, prosecution and all other legal proceedings can be instituted against the state government or any person for anything done in good faith, the Bill says. No civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter arising with regard to this Bill.
Haryana seeks Supreme Court’s intervention
Meanwhile Haryana today sought Supreme Court’s intervention to prevent Punjab from going ahead with passing a Bill in the Assembly for returning the land acquired for the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal.
Arguing before a five-member Constitution Bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave, Haryana’s senior counsel Shyam Divan said the proposed law by Punjab would render the Presidential reference on the validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004, meaningless. Under the 2004 Act, Punjab had sought to get away from its commitment to share the river waters of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.
While the 2004 Act was aimed at defeating the purpose of two SC judgments directing Punjab to construct the SYL canal on its territory, the present move was to render the reference meaningless. Allowing Punjab to go ahead with the legislation would affect the federal structure and threaten national security, Divan pleaded.
Punjab’s senior counsel Rupinder Singh Suri and Ram Jethmalani said they did not agree with Haryana’s contention, projecting a gloomy picture of the future of the federal structure. Both of them said they had not been informed of the proposed Bill and would have to take instructions on this. Nevertheless, they said the proposed law was perhaps meant for protecting the interests of the farmers whose land had been acquired.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said the Centre did not want to take sides by supporting either Punjab or Haryana. However, it was not proper for the SC to issue any order to prevent the Punjab Assembly from going ahead with the legislation. Once the law was enacted, Haryana was free to challenge it, upon which the SC could give its ruling on the validity of the Act, the AG said and suggested that the hearing on the reference could be deferred for two weeks.
The Bench, however, adjourned the hearing till March 17.