Hyderabad
Telangana argued before the court Brijesh Kumar Tribunal, Krishna Water Dissutes Tribunal-II that Andhra Pradesh increased the use of water for the canal system of the Curnool-CuddapAh (KC), ignored the agreement on June 1944 between the Erst Hyderabad and Madras and later gained the same as allocation.
Andhra (coastal Andhra and Rayalaseem, including ceded districts, which also included Ballari), was part of Madras.
Resuming the Final Arguments Before the Tribunal in New Delhi on Wednesday in the Matter of the Section 3 (ISRWD ACT, 1956) Erstwhile (Combined) AP, Senior Counter Appearing for Telangana CS Vaidyanathan Said The KC Canal Was Developed with the consent of the former Hyderaban State (now Telangana).
The condition for Hyderabad was that there should be no objections in the future, if Hyderabad decided to divert water, explained the advisor and added that the 1944 agreement achieved between Hyderabad and Madras was 10 TMC FT Water for KC and 17.1 TMC FT for Rajolibanda for Telangane FTTAN) and 1.2 TMC FT for Karnataka (Raichur, then part of Hyderabad).
The Telangan advisor also said that the Central Water and Power Commission introduced the same at the 1951 interstate conference.
However, the AP ignored the 1944 agreement, AP continued to increase the use of the KC channel to 39.9 TMC FT, submitted the tribunal and added that the actual use on average was 54 TMC FT.
In addition, AP did not provide details of the streams/rivulets such as Nippulavaga, Gallery and Cunt, all Penna Greeks, to the extent 5.2 TMC FT FT in the area of KC channel before kwdt-i the court, which was submitted in court, which were submitted in the Tellangan Department) hearing.
Tellangan advisor also explained with the help of maps, how three other sources-Mumarri-KC channel lift scheme, Maluala Lis and Escape Channel via Nippulavagu in Banakacacacherle-used to release water into the KC from Srisailam Reserve, from the main source of KC Canal System. These diversions are contrary to the KWDT-I price.
When the tribunal asked how much a quantum of water was diverted from the escape canal, the advisor of Telangan explained that the AP government protests against the installation of telemetric equipment in the Banakacherla regulator, where the escape channel regulator starts. If telemetry on all regulatory bodies was not installed in the Banakacherla complex, it was not possible to charge the release to the KC Canal, SRBC, TGP and more.
The Advisor for Telangan also stated that the availability of KC of the KC channel was 45.1 TMC (39.9+ 5.2) and the crop requirement for the area under the KC channel according to scientific assessment was only 18.51 TMC FT. So he should be in Tellangana in Telungana. The tribunal was requested to place an administrative mechanism to reduce the use of the KC channel to the allocated amount.
Published – 23 July 2025 21:46
