J. Venkatesan Existing Cauvery basin irrigation area not protected: Tamil Nadu Karnataka questions Tribunal's methodology New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing in November three special leave petitions filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala challenging the final award passed by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal on February 5, 2007. The Union Territory of Puducherry, which is also a party to the dispute, has not filed an SLP. A Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam, posted the matter for hearing by a three-judge Bench. It asked the parties to file additional documents and written submissions in the meantime. In its SLP, Tamil Nadu said the Tribunal had held valid the 1892 and 1924 agreements (between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka). But it did not protect the existing irrigation area in Tamil Nadu's Cauvery basin. The Tribunal reduced it from 29.27 to 24.70 lakh acres. It erred in granting new irrigation areas in Karnataka. This determination by reducing the area in Tamil Nadu and allowing the proposed area to be brought under irrigation by Karnataka was contrary to the principle of equitable allotment of water of the inter-State river. Karnataka questioned the Tribunal methodology in apportioning water to the three States and to Puducherry. Referring the allocation 270 tmcft to Karnataka, it said Tamil Nadu did not question on merit the requirement of 465 tmcft claimed by Karnataka based on project reports for utilisation under various schemes. "The burden of Karnataka to supply 192 tmcft annually at the inter-State border, Billigundlu, has been fixed without any regard to 30 tmcft. Had that amount been taken into account, the burden on this score alone would have come down to 162 tmcft annually in a normal year at Billigundlu. By such a glaring error, undue burden has been placed on Karnataka during June-September.' Grant is illusory: Kerala Kerala contended that the effect of the February 5 award was to effectively put a moratorium on the present and future growth and use of water by the State from its own basins. The "present projects have been stultified and no scope has been left for the future.' It said the "grant of 30 tmcft to Kerala is entirely illusory if one takes into account that the State has very generously given 31.3 tmcft of water to the Cauvery basin area in Tamil Nadu from its own basin. If this is factored into consideration, the net award to Kerala is -1.3 tmcft...' Questioning the methodology adopted by the Tribunal, Kerala said "an arbitrary system of gauging has been worked out so that while Karnataka releases a fixed amount of 192 tmcft to Tamil Nadu and keeps the rest of the upper riparian water, Kerala has to release all water other than the limited amount allocated to it. This is discriminatory and unfair.'