DURGA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THIS appeal by the defendant is against the decree of a learned single Judge of this court in Civil Suit No. 10/71 declaring that the judgment dt. 4-5-1968 in Civil Suit No. 21/1 of 1965 (Durga Singh v. Union of India) passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Mahasu District and the mutation of 'Patta' obtained by the defendant in pursuance to the said judgment are illegal and void and also granting consequential reliefs in the suit.

(3.) THE compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 21/1 of 65 was challenged on the ground that the Government Pleader (late Shri K. C. Pandit) had no authority to compromise the suit, the Government had not approved the proposed compromise and had never entered into any settlement with the defendant. THE compromise was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud played by the defendant and it is also invalid for the reason that the agreement on which it is based is not in conformity with Art. 299 of the Constitution. THEre were also several other contentions raised which are not necessary to advert to for the disposal of this appeal. THE defendant raised the contention that the compromise was valid as the Government Pleader had acted on behalf of the Government and he was fully within his powers in entering into the compromise. It was also contended that the defendant was always ready and willing to transfer 17 bighas 7 biswas of land in khasra No. 27 in exchange for the same extent of land involved in that suit in terms of the compromise decree but the officers of the Forest Department had declined to act in terms of the compromise decree and it was for that reason that he could not surrender possession of the land in khasra No. 27. All other allegations made in the plaint were also denied in the written statement. As many as six issues were raised in the suit. All the issues were found in favour of the plaintiff. But on issue No. 4 the plaintiff was found entitled to compensation Rs. 3,764.94 instead of Rs. 19,206.50 claim for the trees cut and removed from the Government land encroached upon by the defendant. THE suit was accordingly decreed in the following terms :