KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMAYY versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 03-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
March 3. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMA YY A 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(K. SUBBA RAo, K. 'c. DAS GUPTA AND 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) 
Agreement-Concluded by Superintending Engineer-If hit by •· 17'(3) 
of Government of India A.ct-SuPply of Irrigation water-Trall6fer 
of right-If permission needed-Government of India A.ct, 1935 
(26 Geo. v. Ch. 2), s. 175(3). Bombay Irrigation A.ct, 1879 (Bom. 
of 1879), ss. 3(6), 4, 27-30. 
One K had obtained sanction to irrigate certain lands from a canal. 
The same year the Government proposed to reserve certain area along 
the canal as factory area. According to the appellant after some cor-
respondence between the Government and K, the Superintending Engi~ 
neer agreed to exclude K's land from the factory area and also to &ive 
water perpetually on the condition that he concentrated all his holding 
on the tail outlet of the canal 
an'd to take the supply of water on 
volumetric basis. Pursuant to that arrangement, K concentrated his hold· 
ings and shifted his operations to that area and he was supplied water 
on the agreed basis. Later the appellant and K entered into a partner-
ship in respect of exploiting this area. 
Disputes arose between the 
appellant and K which culminated in a consent decree whereunder the 
appellant became the full owner of the land including the right to use 
this canal water. When the appellant 
applied for the recognition of 
the transfer the canal officer refused to llo so. On appeal he was inform• 
ed that his request for supply of the canal water could not be granted. 
The supply was stopped. After giving them statutory notice under s. 80 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant filed a suit against the State 
for a declaration of his right to water from the canal and for conse-
quential reliefs. The State contested the suit contending, inter alia, that 
there was no concluded agreement between the Government and K, that 
even so, the agreement was void inasmuch as it ttid not comply with 
the provisions of s. 175(3) of the Government of India Act. 1935 and 
in any view the appellant could not les:ally get the 
benefit of the 
agreement under s. 30 of the Bombay Irrigation Act. The Civil Judge 
held that there was a concluded agreement between the Government 
and K. but the transfer by K of the said right in favour of the appel-
lant was in violation of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and 
Agricultural Lands Act and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High 
Court held that there was neither a conclu\led agreement between K 
and the Government nor did it comply with the requirements of law, 
and the appeal was dismissed. On appeal by special leave: 
Held: (i) The documents in the 
instant case record a concluded 
agreement between the Superintendent Engineer, acting on the order of 
.. 
.. 
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
the Minister of Public Works Department, on the one band and K on 
the oiber agreeing lo supply water so long as K bad cane cultivation 
in the conccntrate'd area. 
196~ 
Karamshi Jetlia· 
bhai 
(ii) The 
provisions 
of Bombay Irrigation Act establishes that St 1 of vBomba 
every person desiring to have supply of water from a canal shall apply 
a • 
Y 
in the prescribed manner to the Canal Officer and that person to whom 
water is supplied cannot transfer bis ·right to another without the pennis-
sion of the Canal Officer. But if the land in respect whereof the waler 
is supplied is transferred, the agreement for the supply of water also 
1ball be presumed to have .. been transferred alona with it • 
(iii) The comiuct on the part of the Government as well as that on 
the part of K and the appellant also establishes that the agreement was 
not under the Bombay Irrigation Act, but between the Government 
and K. 
.. 
• (iv J The asreement is void. as it bas not complied with the provisions 
of s. 17S (3) of the Government of India Act. The contract was not 
either entere\I into by the person legally authorised by the Government 
to do so or expressed to be made in the name of Governor. 
Seth Bikhraj laipuria v: Union of lndia, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 860 and 
New Marine Coal Co. v. Union of India, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 8S9, referred to. 
Union of India v. Rallia Ram, A.l.R. 1963 S.C. !68S, referred 10. 
Semble: While it is the duty of a private paity to a litigation to 
place all the relevant matters before the court, a higher responsibility 
rests upon the Government 
not to withhold such document from the 
Court. 
C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.