Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project

A Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, A.S. Oka and J.B. Pardiwala clarified that all steps taken by the concerned authorities in respect of KLIP would be subject to its final decision.

"Issue notice returnable on 23rd August...In the meantime, status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties in all respects. It is further made clear that all steps taken by the concerned authorities with regard to the subject matter of these petitions shall be subject to outcome of these petitions.

In 2015-16, the Telangana Government re-engineered the Pranahita Chevella Lift Irrigation project and proposed the KLIP with the purported aim to increase agricultural productivity in the upland areas of Telangana. The re-designed project is to lift 2 TMC of water per day for 90 days per year from the Godavari River. In 2019, the project was modified and provision was made to draw one additional TMC of water per day. Accordingly, an irrigation canal with 1 TMC capacity, is being built parallelly to an existing canal which has 2 TMC capacity. With the enhanced capacity the State of Telangana aims to draw 240 TMC water in 60 days instead of 90 days.

On 07.08.2020, and again on 11.12.2020, the Minister of Jal Shakthi, Government of India, had addressed letters to the Chief Minister of Telangana asking not to proceed with the project before obtaining requisite sanctions.

The expansion of the project in 2019 was challenged before the National Green Tribunal. On 20.10.2020, it held that the expansion was without Environmental Clearance. It observed that the issue ought to be evaluated by statutory expert committees before expansion is undertaken.

On 15.07.2021, Ministry of Jal Shakti (Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation) notified that KLIP has no approval and asked the State to stop the ongoing work on all the unapproved projects. However, the Telangana Government issued notification under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquiring land in Achampally Village, Gangadhara Mandal, Karimnagar District with respect to the KLP.

The acquisition notification was challenged before the Telangana High Court, which rejected it on the ground of maintainability. Noting that the lis pertains to inter-state river water dispute, it opined that the High Court does not have jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that the High Court has erroneously found the lis to be inter-state water dispute, when the dispute really revolves around whether State of Telangana can draw one additional TMC of water per day from river Godavari for KLIP without the required statutory clearances. The petitioners, he added, had not challenged the right of the State to draw additional water.

Finding merit in the argument, the Bench agreed to consider the matter. Mr. Kumar sought a stay on the project till the final disposal of the petition. The Bench enquired if the High Court had granted a stay when the matter was pending before it. Senior Advocate, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanthan appearing on behalf of the State of Telangana informed the Bench that stay was granted on the acquisition notification.

As the Bench indicated that it was inclined to grant stay in the interim, Mr.Vaidyanathan vehemently opposed. However, the Bench was of the opinion that if stay is not granted and State is allowed to continue with land acquisition, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

"There would be otherwise multiplicity of proceedings w.r.t acquisition. If you insist, we will record your statement that if the project is cancelled then the land vested in Govt. would be returned."

Mr. Vaidyanathan apprised the Bench that the project was in the interest of the public at large and is being interfered with for politically motivated reasons -

"The change is because of climate change. There is intense rain on some days but the monsoon is for a shorter span so we have decided to withdraw 3 TMC instead of 2 TMC. This would benefit the farmers. Otherwise the water is going to the sea. Because Andhra Pradesh does not want Telangana to withdraw water this is being projected."

The Bench reckoned -

"You should not precipitate the action of acquisition."

Mr. Vaidyanthan submitted that the award with respect to land acquisition has already been passed and a large number of farmers are willing to accept the compensation.

"We have already passed the award. If they are willing to take compensation then why should we…kindly appreciate that the whole thing is political."

Senior Advocate, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing on behalf of petitioners informed the Bench that the NGT had found that the enhanced project did not have the environmental clearance. Later, the Central Government has also refrained the State Government to move forward with the project without first obtaining the requisite permissions.

The petition was drawn by Advocate, Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank and filed by Advocate-on-Record, Mr. Vikas Mehta.

[Case Title: Sriram Gangajamuna And Ors. v. State of Telangana And Ors. SLP (C) No. 8454 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order