Holding

The 1983 order did not create a vested right, and the legislature validly enacted the 1993 Act to regulate water supply, which is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14.

Summary

The Parambikulam Aliyar Project was originally set up to irrigate a defined ayacut, and in 1983 the Madras High Court recorded that the petitioners would not object to an extension of 115,000 acres provided the original ayacuts received water at least once every 18 months. In 1993 the Tamil Nadu Legislature enacted the Parambikulam Aliyar Project (Regulation of Water Supply) Act, 1993, restructuring the project into four zones and supplying water to each zone once in two years. The petitioners challenged the Act, arguing that the 1983 order created a vested right and that the legislature could not overrule it, invoking promissory estoppel and Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the 1983 order did not create a vested right, that the legislature has authority under Articles 245 and 246 to amend the scheme, and that the Act, aimed at agrarian reform and equitable water distribution, is not arbitrary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The 1983 High Court order created a vested right to water supply once in 18 months for the original ayacuts.
Whether the State legislature can amend or supersede the 1983 order by enacting the Parambikulam Aliyar Project (Regulation of Water Supply) Act, 1993.
Whether the principle of promissory estoppel bars the legislature from altering the water‑supply scheme.
Whether the 1993 Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution by being arbitrary or discriminatory.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 245, s. Article 246, s. Article 48

Subjects

water supplyirrigationayacutvested rightlegislative competenceArticle 14promissory estoppelagrarian reformstatutory amendmentequitable distribution

Judgment

A PARAMBIKULAM A.P.O. ASSOCIATION
v.
ST A TE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

AUGUST 12, 1999

B [B.N. KIRPAL ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.]

Parambikulam Aliyar Project (Regulation of Water Supply) Act, 1993-
lrrigationfacilities by Parambikulam Aliyar Project-Extension ofarea covered
by the project for supply of water-Order of High Court dated 22. 12.1983
C recorded that the appellant would have no objection to an additional area
being covered by the project or any further extension provided existing
ayacuts were assured supply of water once in 18 months-No mandamus
issued to the State not to increase the area to be covered by the Project-
No vested right created that appellant would get water once in 18 months-
D Act introduced for agrarian reform providing equitable distribution of water
and benefit to a large area and more people-Held, cannot be regarded as
arbitrary or bad in /aw-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14.

Constitution of India, 1950__.:_Articles 245 and 246-legislative
Powers-Validating Statute-State legislature can introduce an ACt with a
E view to provide benefit to large number of people-if any pre-existing right
is established, legislature can alter it by enacting such an Act-Held, such
Act is valid and cannot be said to be arbitrary.

The Parambikulam Aliyar Project was undertaken to supply water for
agricultural operations in some taluks of Coimbatore District. In 1962, a
F declaration was made by the Tamil Nadu Government that ayacutdars would
be supplied water once a year under this project. In 1967 it was represented
that an area of 1,40,000 acres under the project would be irrigated once a
year and balance 1,00,000 acres will be irrigated after the completion of
Solaiyar and Nirar Dams. In 1967 the Tamil Nadu Government issued a
G government order whereby it decided that water be supplied for irrigating
an additional area of 1,15,000 acres. The appellants challenged the decision
in the High Court. As a result of agreement between the parties the writ .-
petitions were disposed of by an order dated 22.12.1983. The said order
recorded that the appellants would have no objection to additional area of
1,15,000 acres being covered by the project or for any further extension
..
H 396
PARAMBIKULAM A.P.O. ASSOCIATION v. STATE 397
provided that existing ayacuts were assured of supply of water once in 18 A
months. After a decade the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Parambikulam
Aliyar Project (Regulation of Water Supply) Act, 1993 with a view to provide
irrigation facilities under the said project by dividing the whole area into
four zones, providing irrigation to each zone once in two years as against
the existing three zones.
B
The appellants challenged the validity of the Act in the High Court
contending that legislature had no power to overrule and set at naught the
order dated 22.12.1983. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that action of the legislature in seeking to provide water to additional land
could under no circumstances be regarded as arbitrary or illegal. C
In this appeal challenging the order the appellants contended that
legislature had no power to overrule and set at naught the order dated
22.12.1983 by passing the impugned Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court D
HELD: l.l. The order of the High Court dated 22.12.1983 cannot be
construed to mean that a vested right had been created that the appellant
would get water once in 18 months. There was no Mandamus issued to the
State not to increase the area to be covered by the project. If there were any
increase which resulted in supply of water being given not once in 18 months E
but at a greater interval then the appellant would have a right to challenge
the same. (401-H; 402-A-BI

Madan Mohan Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , (1978) 2 SCC
50 and S.R. Bhagwat & Ors. v. State of Mysore, (1995) 6 SCC 16,
distinguished. F

2.1. There was valid basis for the enactment of the Parambikulam
Aliyar Project (Regulation of Water Supply) Act, 1993. The Act was enacted
with a view to provide irrigation facilities under the said Parambikulam
Aliyar Project by dividing the whole area into four zones, providing irrigation G
to each zone once in two years as against the existing three zones. Considering
the change in the circumstances over a period of ten years, this Act was
introduced for agrarian reform providing equitable distribution of water and
to benefit a large area and more people. (399-F; 402-C)

2.2. There was no impediment in the lt'gislature in view of change in H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A circumstances and with the passage of time or otherwise, introducing an Act
with a view to provid benefit to larger number of people. Any such enactment
cannot be regarded as arbitrary or in any case bad in law. 1403-D}

State of Tamil Nadu v. Arooran Sugars Ltd, (1997} 1 SCC 326 and
Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd v. Broach Borough Municipality & Ors., (1969) 2
B sec 283, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7719 of
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 5.7. 1994 of the Madras High Court
C in W.P. No. 1258 I of I 993.

A.K. Ganguli, S. Aravindh and V. Balachandran for the Appellants.

R. Mohan, M.A. Krishanamoorthy, M.A. Chinnaswamy and R.
Nedumaran for the Respondents.
-
D Mis. Arputham, Aruna & Co., (NP) for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL,J.

E The validity of Parambikulam Aliyar Project (Regulation of Water Supply)
Act, 1993 is the subject matter of di~pute in this appeal which arises pursuant
to a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of India having been
granted by the High Court of Madras.
...
Briefly stated the facts which are relevant for the disposal of the present
p appeal are that the members of the petitioner society are agriculturists who
are carrying on agricultural operations on lands which are covered in what
is called the Parambikulam Aliyar Project.

The said project was undertaken with a view to supply water for
agricultural operations in some Taluks of Coimbatore District. In I 962 a
G declaration is stated to have been made by the Tamil Nadu Government's
Policy to the effect that ayacutdars would be supplied water once a year
under this project. In 1967 it was represented that an area of l ,40,000 acres
under the project would be irrigated once a year and balance one lakh acres
will be irrigated after the completion of Solaiyar and Nirar dams.

H In 1967 the Tam ii Nadu Government issued a Government Order whereby
PARAMBIKULAM A.P.0. ASSOCIATION v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.) 399

it decided that water be supplied for irrigating on additional area of 1,15,000 A
acres. This decisiorl'was challenged by the appellants by filing Writ Petition
Nos. 575 and 1309of1978 in the High Court of Madras. On 22nd of December,
1983 as a result of agreement between the parties, the writ petitions were
disposed of by the following order:

"The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional B
Government Pleader agree that the following order could be made and
imposed on the parties:

"The petitioner has no objection to the Original Ayacut of250000
acres covered by Parambikulam Aliyar Project being extended by
l, 15,000 acres as envisaged by G.O. No. 126 dated 29-1-1976 or for any C
further extension:

Provided that before applying water to the new ayacutdars in the
extended ayacut, the original ayacutdars are first assured of supply
of sufficient water, subject to availability once in eighteen months as
regularly as possible or practicable." D
There will be an order accordingly in these writ petitions. There
will be no order as to costs."

- Nearly a decade after the passing of the said order the State of Tamil
Nadu enacted the impugned Act. In the preamble it was, inter alia. stated
that under Article 48 of the Constitution of India the State is required to
E

- endeavour to organise agriculture on modem and scientific lines and at that
moment 2, 02, 152 acres of land were getting water supply from the project for
irrigation on rotational basis by dividing the entire ayacuts into three zones
and by supplying water once in 18 months on rotationa1 basis in each year.
The preamble also noted by referring to the representation which was received F
from other proverbial drought prone Taluks who wanted the extension of
supply of water under the project to those Taluks. The impugned Act was
enacted with a view to provide irrigation facilities under the said project by
dividing the whole area into four zones, providing irrigation to each zone once
in two years as against the existing three zones. Section 3 of the said Act, G
which is relevant in the present case, reads as under:

3(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court,
Tribunal or other authority or any custom, agreement or usage or any
rule, notification or order made or issued by the Government relating H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A to inclusion of ayacuts in the Parambikulam-Aliyar Project or supply
of water to such ayacuts or parts thereof and in force on the date of
publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the
Government may after consulting the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) or
such other officer or authority as they may consider necessary, by
notification, regulate on rotational basis in accordance with the rules
B as may be prescribed, the supply of water for agricultural purposes
for a total extent of3,77,152 acre$ of land in the Parambikulam -Aliyar
Project, comprised in the four zones as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Government shall, before issuing a notification under sub-

c section (1), take into consideration the following matters:

(a) the interest of the general public;
-
(b) the maximum possible advantage which may result in agricultural
production in extending the supply of water to more lands;

D (c) the advantage of bringing.prosperity to the backward and drought-
prone areas by bringing them within the ayacuts;

(d) the availability of water to the existing ayacuts;

(e) the optimum utilisation of the available water to a larger extent of
ayacuts; and ·
E
(t) such other matters as may be prescribed."

The validity of the said Act was challenged by filing writ petition in the
Madras High Court. Before the High Court it was sought to be contended that
the legislature has no power to overrule and set at naught the order dated
F 22nd December of 1983 which had been passed in the earlier writ petition
which had been filed. In addition thereto it was also submitted that the
respondent was estopped from going back on the commitment which had
been given on the basis of which the order dated 22nd of December, 1983 was
passed.
G
The High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the change
in the circumstances warranted the passing of the enactment and the principle
of promissory estopple was not applicable in that case. It further came to the
conclusion that the action of the legislature in seeking to provide water to L
additional land could under no circumstances be regarded as arbitrary or
H illegal.
PARAMBIKULAM A.P.O. ASSOCIATION v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 401

It was submitted by Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel that the A
Tamil Nadu Legislature h~d no jurisdiction to pass the impugned enactment
which according to him, set at naught the judgment dated 22nd of December,
1983. In support of this contention he sought to place reliance on the decision
of this Court in Madan Mohan Pathak and another v. Union of India and
Ors., [ 1978] 2 SCC 50 and S. R. Bhagwat and Ors. v. State of Mysore, [ 1995]
6 SCC 16. In our opinion none of these decisions can be of any assistance B
to the appellant.

In Madan Mohan Pathak 's case the question was whether the mandamus
issued by the Calcutta High Court directing the Life Insurani;e Corporation
to pay cash bonus to its Class III and Class IV employees in terms of C
settlement dated 24th of July, 1974, which had become final under the terms
of the Industrial Disputes Act, could be disturbed by the Parliament by
enacting the Life Insurance Corporation (Modification of Settlement) Act. The
Court, construing the provisions of the said Act, came to the conclusion that
the said Act could operate only prospectively. In Madan Mohan Pathak's
case this Court took note of the fact that against the decision of the Single D
Judge Letters Patent Appeal had been filed. Union of India withdrew the said
appeals and allowed the Single Judge's judgment to become final. In view of
this Court had come to the conclusion that the judgment of the Single Judge
could have been upturned if the appeal had been pursued but instead of
adopting that way the impugned Act had been enacted. Explaining the decision E
in Madan Mohan Pathak's case this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arooran
Sugars ltd., [1997] l SCC 326 at pages 334-345 observed that because of the
factual position in Madan Mohan Pathak 's case the principle which was
enunciated by this Court in Prithvi Cotton Mills ltd. v. Broach Borough
Municipality and others, [ 1969] 2 SCC 283 could not be applied. This decision
in Madan Mohan Pathak 's case is clearly not applicable in the instant case. F

Similarly S.R. Bhagwat's case (supra) can be of no assistance to the
appellants in the present case because this Court held that the order of
mandamus was sought to be nullified by the enactment of the new statute
which had sought to disentitle the deemed promotees to arrears of p!ly for G
the period prior to actual allotment which had a retrospective effect and had
sought to take away the right to arrears of salary which had become final as
a result of the decision of the Court which had not been challenged in the
appeal. In the present case the impugned Act had no retrospective operation.

The order of the High Court dated 22nd December, 1983, when read H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A carefully, cannot be construed to mean that a vested right had been created
that the appellant would get water once in 18 months. The said order recorded
that the appellant would have no objection to additional area of l,15,000 being
covered by the project or for any further extension provided that existing
ayacuts were assured of supply of water once in 18 months. There was no
mandamus issued to the State not to increase the area to be covered by the
B Project. If there were any increase which resulted in supply of water being
given not once in 18 months but at a greater interval then the appellant would
have a right to challenge the same. Factually, therefore, there is no similarity
·between the present situation and that with which this Court was dealing in
Madan Mohan Pathak's case (supra) and S.R. Bhagwat's case (supra).
c-
We may view the matter from a different angle. On the facts as existed
in 1983 the.order dated 22nd December, 1983 was passed, as a result of which
an area of 3,65,000 acres was covered by the project. Considering the change
(
in the circumstances over a period of ten years, and as a matter of agrarian
reform, a new procedure was enacted for more equitable distribution of water.
D In this connection, on the basis of the material placed before the High Court
it had observed as follows:

"36 ...... The materials placed before us by the respondents are sufficient
to prove that the four zone pattern which is being introduced by the
E Act for the purpose of irrigation is certainly beneficial to large
number of agriculturists. The records show that more area of dry lands
in the drought-prone zones will be brought under cultivation. By the
new pattern there will be continuous flow in all the canals throughout
the year which will result in the increase in ground-water potentials.
All the wells in the ayacut areas and adjacent areas will get indirect
F
benefit of ground-water recharge, which will help the people to utilise
the well water during the non-irrigation period also for domestic as
well as irrigation purposes. The present pattern is such that the flow
of water in the canals is to their full length throughout the year.
'
G 37. We find that under the four zone pattern of irrigation, the entire
extent of 2,03,299 acres in the old ayacut has been distributed over
all the four zones in the following manner:

Zone Old Ayacut New Extension

H Zone I 70,308 28,250
PARAMBIKULAM A.P.O. ASSOCIATION v. STATE [KIRPAL, J.) 403

Zone II 43,851 54,567 A
Zone III 54,537 39,487

Zone IV 34,603 51,549

A look at the plans filed by the Government will show that the area B
is divided into four zones in such a manner that/tl\_e water shall flow
from the head to the tail end every time. That will undoubtedly result
in keeping high percentage of humidity in the atmosphere. In short,
no one can take any exception to the irrigation of 3,77,000 acres as
against 2,03,000 acres on the ground that the original a:yacutdars have
a vested right to get a particular quantum of water. Even if they had C
such a right, it can be restricted to a reasonable extent by an appropriate
legislation. It is quite obvious, however, that the Act is only regulating
the distribution of water in an equitable manner. It is a measure of
agrarian reform to bring more lands under cultivation and increase the
agricultural production". D
It is quite evident from what is stated hereinabove that there was a valid
basis for the enactment of the impugned Act. We do not see any impediment
in the legislature in view of change in circumstances and with the passage
of time or otherwise, introducing an Act with a view to provide benefit to
larger number of people. Any such enactment cannot be regarded as arbitrary· E
or in any case bad in law. Before concluding we would like to obsetve that
the High Court has also took note of the fact that the appellants have not
established any pre-existing right and in any case, even if, that right had been
established the State legislature could certainly have altered the same with a
view to provide benefit to a larger area and more people.
F
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The
same is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.

NJ. Appeal dismissed.

l