The Supreme Court passed the order on an urgent application moved by Haryana Government on the SYL canal issue.
In a setback to Punjab, the Supreme Court today directed maintenance of status quo on land meant for Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal after Haryana alleged that attempts have been made to alter its use by levelling it.
The court in its interim order also appointed Union Home Secretary and Punjab's Chief Secretary and Director General of Police (DGP) as the 'joint receiver' of land and other property meant for the SYL canal till the next date of hearing on March 31.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice AR Dave passed the order with a hard-hitting observation that "an effort is made to make execution of the decree of this court unexecutable and this court cannot be a silent spectator."
It passed the order on an urgent application moved by Haryana Government submitting that Punjab Assembly on March 14 passed a bill against the
construction of contentious SYL canal providing for transfer of proprietary rights back to the land owners free of cost.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan said the bill awaiting Governor's assent would negate the Supreme Court's 2004 decree calling for unhindered construction of the canal which will
provide share of its water to Haryana.He referred to news reports with photographs that JCB and earthmoving equipment have been arranged for levelling the land in the Punjab part of the canal and sought ad-interim protection by appointing the 'court receiver' and restraining the publication of the assent to the bill in gazette notification.
Haryana's application was opposed by senior advocates Ram Jethmalani and Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for Punjab, who submitted that the Supreme Court has only advisory jurisdiction and cannot pass interim orders as there was no prima facie case made out and the arguments of the opposite side was based on media reports.
However, Mr Dhawan's submission on media reports did not cut much ice with the bench, which shot back "do you think that what has been stated in the newspapers is incorrect?"
"You could have done something on Monday (the day the bill was passed in Punjab Assembly)", the bench said adding that if anything happens in between "we will modify our order."
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)