New Delhi, May 7 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave one more chance to the states of Punjab and Haryana to find an "amicable" solution for their long-standing dispute over the construction of the Satluj Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, ordered by the top court in 2002, even as it criticised Punjab for its "high handedness" in passing a law de-notifying the land meant for the canal in an attempt to defeat the 2002 verdict. The hearing came even as the two states are locked in a separate legal battle over water sharing, with Punjab disregarding the Bhakra Beas Management Board as well as the Union government, and refusing to share water with Haryana. Hearing a suit filed by Haryana seeking implementation of the 2002 order, a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and Augustine George Masih granted time for the two states to reach an amicable settlement through talks being facilitated by Centre failing which the matter will be taken up on August 13. Senior advocate Gurminder Singh informed the court that since the passing of the 2002 verdict, developments in the state mean that proceeding with the construction of the canal will lead to a "law and order" situation. He said that in 2004, the then Prakash Singh Badal government in the state passed the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act (PTAA) which de-notified the land acquired for canal and restored the land to the original landowners. After a Presidential reference, a Constitution bench of the apex court, in 2016 held the 2004 law to be constitutionally invalid, but the land has remained with the farmers who are cultivating it and dispossessing them now will lead to "unrest" the state government argued. The bench remarked, "Was it not an act of high-handedness that you showed by passing the Act and de-notifying the land? Was it not an attempt to defeat the decree of this court? It would have helped the three states - Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan but you have now abandoned the land." Holding the action of the state to return the land to the farmers to be wrong in law, the court said, "There is a judgment of this court that when land is occupied for public purpose, it has to be used only for public purpose." Singh told the court that the case has become a very "emotional" issue in the state and offered an alternative that will meet with the requirement of supply of requisite water to Haryana instead of constructing the canal. The bench remarked, "It is equally an emotional issue for Haryana. But they have constructed their part of the canal. If your alternate plan is accepted, what happens to the canal they have already constructed?." Senior advocate Shyam Divan appearing for Haryana said the approach of Punjab deserves to be condemned as the state has shown no respect to the court's orders or to the inter-state dispute resolution mechanism which, if permitted, will be harmful for the federal set up. He referred to the other, more recent legal dispute as well. "Punjab government has on April 1 taken over the institutional machinery for Bhakra Nangal dam forcing the BBMB to approach the high court. If a state starts taking law into their hands, court must say, this far and no more," Divan said. HT reached out to officials of both state governments who said they would go through the court order first....