Feedback / Suggestions

Departmental Wings- WRD ISW





1.1.1 The riparian states of Krishna river basin were Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh before the Andhra Pradesh reorganisation Act, 2014. On reorganisation, the State of Telangana became one of the riparian States.


1.1.2 The first Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-I) determined the yield of the basin as 2060 tmc at 75% dependability and allocated to the States of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.  The Tribunal had also estimated the return flow as 70 tmc which was divided amongst the States; thus, 2130 tmc was divided amongst the States. The entitlement of States stood as follows:



Sl. No.


Allocation (2060 tmc)

Allocation (return flow of 70 tmc)

Total Allocation












Andhra Pradesh










1.1.3 The allocations were made en bloc which means that the states are at liberty to allocate project wise and use their full allocated shares in any water year.  The upstream States of Karnataka and Maharashtra were allowed the full use of their allocations in any water year without having regard to the sharing of deficit or surplus.  Since, downstream State Andhra Pradesh was supposed to share the entire deficit in any water year, it was compensated by permitting the State of Andhra Pradesh to use surplus above 2130 tmc including the remaining water unused by the upstream States without acquiring any right. 

1.1.4 The KWDT-I had also devised Scheme-B to assign the likely shares in surplus waters available above 2130 tmc.  It provided that the shares in the surplus water would be on percentage basis:





Andhra Pradesh



1.1.5 The Scheme-B was not made as a part of the final decision of the Tribunal-I since there was no agreement amongst the parties for constitution of Krishna Valley Authority which was necessary to implement Scheme-B.  Since, the Scheme-B was not notified by the Central Government, as it was not a decision, it didn’t become operative.


1.1.6  The Tribunal had provided that, the order may be reviewed or revised by a competent authority or Tribunal at any time after 31st May 2000.



2.1   Case of the States:


2.1.1  The States of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh filed their letter of Complaints for constitution of a Water Disputes Tribunal on 26.09.2002, 27.11.2002 and 20.01.2003 respectively before the Government of India.


2.1.2  The Central Government constituted the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal by notifying on 02.04.2004 comprising of the following;


  1. Justice Brijesh Kumar,                         :                      Chairman

                Former Judge, Supreme Court of India


  1. Justice S. P. Srivastava                         :                       Member

      Former Judge,High Court of Allahabad,UP                  

      (upto 09.08.2012 - Expired on 09.08.2012)              



iii.  Justice D. K. Seth                                                           :                       Member     

      Former Judge,Calcutta High Court, Kolkata

(Resigned on 23.05.2015)


  1. Justice B.P.Das             :                       Member   

        Former Judge, Odisha high Court, Cuttak

      (in place of Justice Shri S.P.Srivastava from 27.12.2012)


  1. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy             :                       Member

      Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka

                   (in place of Justice ShriD.K.Seth from 24.09.2015)


2.1.3  In the complaint of Karnataka, the issue of illegal construction of large scale permanent projects by Andhra Pradesh was raised and permission for raising the Almatti dam from RL 519.60 m to RL 524.256 m.  It also claimed the share in surplus water above 2130 tmc at 50%.  During the proceedings before the Tribunal-II, Karnataka, through an Interlocutory Application, also objected the construction of Telugu-Ganga, Srisailam Left bank canal, Srisailam Right bank canal, Bhima Lift Irrigation, Pulichintala, Velligonda, Handriniva, Galerunagari, Kalwakurthy LIS, Nettampadu LIS and Koilsagar LIS projects for utilising the surplus water by Andhra Pradesh.


2.1.4  The State of Maharashtra had, amongst others, questioned the height of Almatti Dam on the basis of alleged submergence of its territory due to backwater effect.  


2.1.5  Andhra Pradesh had, amongst others, questioned the height of Almatti Dam that would be over sized and it would adversely affect flows into its territory.



2.2  K.W.D.T. II ORDERS:



2.2.1  After submission of documents, oral evidences and detailed deliberations by the party States, the KWDT-II gave its Report containing the Final Order under Sec. 5(2) of the ISRWD Act on 30.12.2010. The party States and Union of India filed their respective Reference Applications under Sec. 5(3) of the Act before the Tribunal, seeking clarifications/guidance on the Final Order dated 30.12.2010. After hearing the submissions by the party States and Union of India, the Tribunal gave its Further Report under Sec. 5(3) of the Act on 29.11.2013. 


2.2.2  The KWDT-II permitted the State of Karnataka to raise the height of Almatti dam up to RL 524.256 m.  The Tribunal also decided and made part of the order that the provisions made in the decision/order passed and directions given by KWDT-I which have not been amended, modified or reviewed by this order shall continue to be operative.   


2.2.3  The final allocation to the Party States in the Further Report of KWDT-I and KWDT-II at different dependability are as follows: 


Allocation as per KWDT-I at 75% dependability

Allocation as per KWDT-II

Total Allocation

At 65% dependability

At average







907 TMC






666 TMC

Andhra Pradesh





1005 TMC






2578 TMC


2.2.4  The KWDT-II has provided for the review or revision by a Competent Authority or Tribunal at any time after 31st May, 2050 and such a review or revision shall not as far as possible disturb any utilisation that may have been undertaken by any State within limits of allocation made to it.


2.2.5  The KWDT-II has also framed a detailed mechanism for drawal of water by States at different dependability. The drawal of water would be by successive steps i.e., the allocations at 75% dependability in the first instance, at 65% dependability in the second instance and at an average in the final instance. 




3.1   SLPs filed by the Party States before the Hon’ble Supreme Court:


3.1.1  The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed a Special Leave Petition on 28.03.2011 questioning the order given by the Tribunal on 30.12.2010.  The States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh filed SLPs against Further Report under Sec.5(3) of the Act given by the Tribunal on 29.11.2013.  After the re-organization of the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the State of Telangana got itself impleaded as the party in the SLPs of the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and also filed its independent SLPs before the Supreme Court questioning the decision/final order of the KWDT-II. 

3.1.2  The State of Telangana has filed a complaint before Central Government under Sec.3 of the ISRWD Act on 14.07.2014. It sought before the Government of India for reference of its complaint to either KWDT-II or to a Tribunal to be constituted under the Act.  When the Central Government did not act upon the complaint, the State of Telangana filed a Writ Petition (being W.P.545/2015), on 10.08.2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking the issuance of directions to the Central Government for constitution of a Tribunal and to refer its complaint to it.


3.1.3  During the hearing of SLP, against the decision/final order of the Tribunal under Sec.5 (2), filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh before Supreme Court before on 16.09.2011, the Hon’ble Court, keeping in view that the matter would require detailed consideration, has directed that “till further orders the decision which may be taken by the Tribunal on the reference petitions filed by the three States and the Central Government shall not be published in the Official Gazette”.  The Central Government has not notified the Final Order of the Tribunal in the Official Gazette, presumably waiting for the judgment of the Supreme Court.  The State of Maharashtra has filed an application before the Supreme Court to notify the Final Order of the Tribunal. 


3.1.4 On 18.02.2019, the State of Karnataka has filed an application for modification of Interim order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.09.2011 passed in I.A.No.3/2011 in SLP against the decision/final order of the Tribunal under Sec.5 (2) filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and also requested to direct the Central Government to notify the decision and Report dated 30.12.2010 and Further Report dated 29.11.2013 passed by KWDT-II.


3.1.5 The State of Telangana has filed an IA No.67212/2021 in Writ Petition No.545/2015 on 09.06.2021 for permission to withdraw the Writ Petition No.545/2015. Further, on 18.08.2021, the State of Telangana has also filed an IA in Writ Petition No.545/2015 for deletion of the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra from the array of Parties in the Writ Petition No.545/2015. The States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra have filed replies to the withdrawal application of Telangana. The Respondent States did not agree to the conditional withdrawal of Writ Petition of Telangana.

3.1.6 The matter of IA No.67212/2021 was listed for hearing and the Writ Petition of Telangana was “disposed of as withdrawn” vide Supreme Court order dated 06.10.2021.

3.1.7 On 06.11.2021, the State of Karnataka has filed an Additional Affidavit in the I.A. No.30361 of 2019 in SLP (c) No.10498 of 2011 to direct the Central Government to publish the modified Final order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II subject to the outcome in the pending SLP (c) No.10498 of 2011 and connected SLPs.

3.1.8 The proceedings of SLPs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court are under progress.


4.0    Reference to Tribunal under Sec.89 of the A.P. Re-Organisation Act of 2014:

4.1     The Central Government issued a Notification on 15.05.2014 referring the Sec.89 of the A.P. re-organisation Act of 2014 to the KWDT-II. 

4.2     The State of Telangana pleaded for re-opening of the disputes i.e., the entire award/decision for fresh adjudication and the State of Andhra Pradesh contended for the determination of project wise allocations, and to determine an operational protocol for project wise release of waters in the event of deficit flows, which in effect, modifying the en bloc allocations of KWDT-I to share the deficiency by the upstream States.  Both the States pleaded for making all the four States as parties before the Tribunal. 


4.3     The Tribunal in its order, dated 19.10.2016, held that it may not be possible to determine an operational protocol for project wise release of water by the upstream States but the determination of operational protocol for project wise release of water is in respect of the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh only and the reference is confined to only two successor States viz., States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and not for all the four States of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.


4.4     The State of Telangana has filed SLP before the Supreme Court against the above order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 09.01.2017. 


4.5     The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed SLP and prayed for stay of further proceedings pursuant to final order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.12.2018.    


4.6     The proceedings before the Tribunal, excluding the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra are under progress.



5.1     Karnataka has planned to divert 7.56 tmc of water from Mahadayi river to Malaprabha river, which is a small quantity of its contribution to Mahadayi basin, so as to meet the drinking water requirements of Hubli-Dharwad city, enroute towns and villages.  The scarcity of drinking water, in this area, is so acute that the people are unable to get their drinking water requirements even once in ten days.  When Karnataka had planned for the diversion, and was in the process of getting statutory clearances, Goa chose to complain to Government of India, during March 2001, for preventing Karnataka from taking up such projects.

5.2     The Union Ministry of Water Resources accorded “IN PRINCIPLE CLEARANCE” to Karnataka, for diversion of 7.56 tmc of water, from Mahadayi catchment to Malaprabha reservoir, in its letter dated 30.04.2002.


5.3     Government of Goa objected to this “IN PRINCIPLE CLEARANCE” given by Government of India.  The Government of Goa, in letter dated 09.07.2002, took strong exception to such clearance and filed a complaint for constitution of the Tribunal.  The Union Ministry of Water Resources, therefore, kept this “IN PRINCIPLE CLEARANCE” in abeyance in letter dated 19.09.2002.

5.4     The State of Goa approached the Supreme Court, by filing a Suit on 15.09.2006 (O.S.4 of 2006).

5.5     A complaint for Constitution of the Tribunal has been sent to MoWR on 26.06.2010 on behalf of Government of Karnataka.

5.6     Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted by the Union Government vide Notification dated: 16.11.2010 for adjudication of Mahadayi basin water allocation issue comprising of the following:

  1. Justice J.M.Panchal,                         :                 Chairman

      Former Judge, Supreme Court of India


  1. Justice Viney Mittal                         :                    Member

      Former Judge,High Court of Madhya Pradesh             



iii.   Justice P.S.Narayana                                                     :                    Member 

       Former Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh


5.7     Karnataka had claimed a total quantity of 36.558 tmc including 7.56 tmc required for diversion to Malaprabha river from Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project for drinking water supply of Hubli-Dharwad, Kundagol town, enroute villages etc. The State had filed the required documents and put forth arguments before the Tribunal. 

5.8     The States of Goa and Maharashtra had claimed 122.60 tmc and 6.35 tmc respectively.

5.9     Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal has given its Final Decision/Award on 14.08.2018. The Tribunal has assessed that 188.06 tmc water is available at 75% dependability.  The Tribunal has allocated Karnataka and other States as below:


  1. Karnataka -   42  tmc
  2. Goa -   00  tmc

(over and above the existing  utilisation of 9.395 tmc)

  1. Maharashtra           -   33  tmc


5.10   The details of the claims of Karnataka and allocations made by Tribunal are as below:


Details of Projects

Claims (in tmc)

Allocation by Tribunal (in tmc)

Diversion  to Malaprabha Dam under Kalasa-Bhanduri Project for drinking water requirements of Hubballi-Dharwad twin cities and en-route towns and villages.

Kalasa Nala - 3.56

Banduri Nala - 4.00



Diversion  to Kali nadi to augment the flows for power generation under KHEP.




In basin use for irrigation and water supply



MHEP for power generation


(including evaporation

loss of  0.40 )



Additional planned utilization  claims proposed  before MWDT i.e., allocation of  7.00 tmc of surplus water available at 75%  dependability in Mahadayi Basin at the proposed Kotni dam site for utilization in Malaprabha basin for the following schemes:


i) Protective irrigation in the DPAP areas of Ramdurga, Soundatti and Bailhongal taluks by LIS.


ii) Drinking water and irrigation by recharge of ground water in the DPAP areas of Ramdurga, Soundatti and Bailhongal taluks.


iii) For Malaprabha command which are not getting adequate water as original planned.



































5.11   Out of 13.42 tmc allocated to the State, 5.4 tmc is for consumptive use and 8.02 tmc for non consumptive use.


5.12   The Tribunal has provided that the award / final decision may be reviewed or revised by a competent authority or Tribunal anytime after 31st August 2048.


5.13   The States of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa have filed their respective SLPs before Supreme Court against the Order of the Tribunal dated 14.08.2018. The proceedings are in progress.


5.14   The Contempt Petition No.2113/2018 was filed by Goa before Supreme Court in O.S.4/2006 against the State of Karnataka regarding the orders of the Supreme Court dated 30.04.2008 and 27.08.2008.


5.15   The State of Goa filed an Application IA No.1/2018 on 18.08.2018 seeking action for disobedience against the State of Karnataka inter alia for breach and disobedience of the Order of Injunction Dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal and further for purging and enforcement of the Order of Injunction dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 


5.16   The party States and Union of India have filed their respective Reference applications under Section 5(3) of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 for clarification, explanation and guidance on the Orders of the Tribunal.


5.17   On 09.05.2019, IA. No.1/2018 came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Tribunal. Senior Counsel appearing for all the parties jointly requested for an adjournment of the application, till the disposal of Contempt petition No.2113/2018 pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Considering the request of parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing of IA. No.1/2018.



5.18   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its hearing on Interim Application (submitted by the State of Karnataka for publication of award in the Gazette) on 20.02.2020 directed for publication of the decision/final order of the Tribunal and accordingly the Union Government has published the award in the Gazette on 27.02.2020.


5.19 The State of Goa has filed a Contempt Petition(C) No. 724/2020 in SLP No.19312/2019 arraying the Chief Secretary of Karnataka as the Respondent, contending that the State of Karnataka has diverted Mahadayi water in violation of the Award.


  • When the Contempt Petition No.724/2020 along with SLPs came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.02.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered to submit a report of Joint Monitoring Team, which consists of Superintending Engineers of the States of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra after visiting the site, in order to have an expert assessment on whether the breaches which were plugged have again recurred. Further, Supreme Court Ordered to file written submissions to facilitate the final disposal of the proceedings.


  • The States of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa have submitted their reports of respective member of Joint monitoring Teambefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court after inspecting the site. The State of Karnataka also filed reply to the report submitted by Mr.M.K Prasad,Member,Joint Monitoring team, Goa.


  • On 12.07.2021,on behalf of the State of Karnataka, the Written Submissions in SLP(C) No. 33018 of 2018 have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


  • The matter of SLPs and Contempt Petitions are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


















6.1     The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal gave its report/decision on 02.11.1979 under Sec.5(2) of the ISRWD Act and Further Report under Sec.5(3) of the Act on 07.07.1980.  The adjudication culminated in the report based on the agreements of the parties.  The interests of Karnataka were limited to Manjra sub-basin of Godavari basin.  The award has permitted the State of Karnataka to use 22.37 tmc.  The Government has taken up the projects for complete utilisation of 22.37 tmc. 


6.2     The State of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka entered into an agreement on 04.08.1978 involving the sharing of diversion of 80 tmc of waters from Polavaram project in Godavari basin to Krishna basin.  Out of diversion of 80 tmc, Karnataka is permitted to use 21 tmc as its share and this is in addition to the allocation to the State of Karnataka by KWDT-I.  The Central Government has accorded all clearances including investment clearance of Planning Commission to the Polavaram Project and has declared the project as National Project. 


6.3     The Polavaram project involves the submersion of territory of Orissa under the back waters.  The State of Orissa has filed an Original Suit (O.S.4 of 2007) before Supreme Court, against Andhra Pradesh, seeking the clearances accorded to the project to be kept in abeyance due to the submergence of its territory by the back waters of the project.  The dispute has been with regard to the fresh determination of maximum flood and the level of spillway so that the submergence of Orissa territory is freshly determined.  The State of Karnataka got impleaded in the suit.  In the order of Supreme Court on 30.09.2016, the State of Karnataka and Maharashtra were added as party defendants to the suit and after Andhra re-organisation, the State of Telangana has also got impleaded in the suit. Supreme Court Proceedings are under progress.


6.4     The State of Telangana has filed an Original Suit (O.S. 1 of 2019) before the Supreme Court of India on 25.02.2019 in the matter of concerns of the State of Telangana to protect more than 100 villages and important heritage sites of religious significance and heavy water plant etc., which will face severe submergence due to all effects including backwaters of the Polavaram project and for conducting public hearing in the affected districts of Telangana as per Environment Protection Act.








7.1     The State of Andhra Pradesh filed Original Suit before Supreme Court against Paragodu drinking water supply project and other minor irrigation projects taken up by the State of Karnataka in North Pennar river basin.  It has sought for injunction against the State of Karnataka from executing the projects and impounding waters therein. It has also sought for direction to the Central Government to act on the disputes for settlement/adjudication as per ISWD Act of 1956.  The Supreme Court decided to adjudicate by not referring to the Tribunal. The evidence by the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have been completed.


7.2     The next date of hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is awaited.




  • Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal constituted by Notification of Central Government, dated 2nd June 1990, delivered the Final Order on 05.02.2007.
  • Based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 04.02.2013, the Central Government notified the Final Order of the Tribunal vide Gazette notification dated 19.02.2013.
  • The States approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions questioning the award/decision. Later, the SLP’s were converted to Civil Appeals.
  • The Supreme Court after hearing the final arguments of the party States in their Civil Appeals gave its judgment on 16.02.2018.
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court increased the allocation of State of Karnataka from 270 tmc to 284.75 tmc.
  • The Government of India, by Gazette Notification dated 16.07.2018 dissolved the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.

Last Updated: 04-12-2021 01:28 PM Updated By: Admin

Disclaimer :

Please note that this page also provides links to the websites / web pages of Govt. Ministries/Departments/Organisations.The content of these websites are owned by the respective organisations and they may be contacted for any further information or suggestion

Website Policies

  • Copyright Policy
  • Hyperlinking Policy
  • Security Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Help
  • Screen Reader Access
  • Guidelines


  • Last Updated​ :
  • Visitors Counter :
  • Version :
CONTENT OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY : Water Resources Department
Designed, Developed and Hosted by: Center for e-Governance - Web Portal, Government of Karnataka © 2023, All Rights Reserved.

Best viewed in Chrome v-87.0.4280.141, Microsoft Edge v-87.0.664.75, Firefox -v-83.0 Browsers. Resolution : 1280x800 to 1920x1080