LALJI KHIMJI AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 29-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
I';, 
A 
LAI.JI KHIMJI AND ORS. 
v. 
.J... 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
JANUARY 29, 1993 
B 
[L.M. SHARMA, CJ. AND DR. A.S. ANAND, J.] 
Bombll"j Irrigation Ac~ 1879 : 
'"' 
Sections 3(6), 17,18 and 77 and Notification dated 27th September, 
c 
1963-Executive Engineer appointed as Canal Officer-Whether competent to 
enter into agreement/compromise with landlords on behalf of Government 
-Ulhether such agreement binding on Government. 
Constitution of India. 1950 : 
Anicle 299--Agreement entered into by Executive Engineer, appointed 
>--
D 
as Canal Officer, with landlords in exercise of powers vested under the 
Bombay Irrigation Ac~ 1879-Whether a contract within the meaning of the 
Article-Whether invalid for non-satisfaction of essential requirements of the 
Article. 
E 
Under an Irrigation Scheme, the respondent-State proposed to con-
'""' 
struct a dam on a river in the State and prepared a sketch, Indicating the 
passage of the canal from the Dam and for that purpose, proceeded to 
acquire land through which the canal was proposed to run. Apprehending 
that serious damage will be caused to their lands by the passing of the 
F 
<:anal through their lands, the appellants-farmers Ried a suit against the 
respondent-State, seeking to restrain it from implementing the Irrigation 
Scheme, as proposed. During the pendency of the suit an agreement was .. 
arrived at between the parties to the effect that the canal from the Dam 
would be run as per the line demarcated in red in the map appended to 
G 
the deed of agreement. As a result, the suit was unconditionally withdrawn 
by the appellants, bbt subsequently, on discovering that the State Govern-
ment was going back from the agreement and lbe alignment of the canal 
was being undertaken coatrary to the alignment reflected in red in the map 
appended to the agi-eement, they filed a fresh suit for declaration to the 
effect that the agreement entered into between them and the respondents 
H 
through its Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, was binding on the 
366 
,a. ... 
.. 
\ 
I 
IALJI KHIMJI v. STATE 
'367 
! 
. 
parties and that the parties were bound to act according to the terms or 
the said agreement and ror an Injunction, restraining the respondent-State 
from going back on the agreemenL 
A -
The trial court decreed the suit and permanently restrained the 
State rrom going back rrom the agreement and acting otherwise than as 
per the terms or the same. The appeal prererred by the State was also· B 
dismissed by the District Judge •. 
The State filed a second appeal before the High Court contending 
· that the alleged compromise/agreement was not binding upon the State, 
inasmuch as the Executive Engineer had no authority to agree on .behalr 
or the State Governmenfas he was not the representative or the Govern-
C 
me~L The High Court held that the· agreement was a null and void 
document ror non-compliance with the mandatory provisions or Article 
299(1) or the Constitution. It ·also rejected the appellants' plea that under 
the statutory powers conrerred by section 18 or the Bo~bay lrrigatloa Act, 
1879 the Executive Engineer was competent to enter Into a compromise D 
and that the said compromise "arrived at during the pendency or the earlier 
suit was binding on the GovernmenL - · 
In the appeal filed berore thi~. Court OD behalr or the appellants· 
rarmers, It was submitted. that reliance placed on Article 299 or the 
Constitution or India was wholly erroneous, that by a Notification, dated E. · 
27th. or Sepkmber 1963, publi•hed In Part IV-8 or the G.,"vernment 
Gazette, the State Government had appointed all Executive Engineers and 
Superintending Engineers In charge or canals in the State to be Canal 
Officers in respect or such canals and assigned to them all the powers and 
duties or the Canal Officers under the Act and, thererore, the agree-
F 
ment/compromise entered Into by the Executive Engineer during the pen-
dency or the suit or which he was doing 'pervi' was a validly executed 
compromise which was binding on the parties and respondent could not 
go back on it, and that after having mad9he appellants to withdraw their 
._ 
earlier suit on the basis or the agreement, It was not permissible ror the G 
respondent to dispute the act done by its officers or agents within their 
powers under the statute. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. The agreement/compromise arrived at in the previous H 
) 
\ 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 1 S.C.R

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