A compromise decree passed in a civil suit involving government land is invalid and unenforceable if it does not comply with the requirements of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution.

P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J.—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 dated 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.

2. The defendant is the owner in possession of the land in khasra Nos. 23 and 27 of village Lindi Dhar Tehsil Kasumpti. The adjoining land in khasra No. 22 belongs to the Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. The defendant had encroached upon the land in khasra No. 22 and had planted an extent of 17 bighas 7 biswas of land in 1958. The Naib Tehsildar on demarcation of boundaries found the aforesaid extent of 17 bighas 7 biswas belonged to the Government and formed part of khasra No.

22. The Government thereafter took proceedings for the ejectment of the defendant and by order dated 16-2-1962 of the District Collector, the defendant was ordered to be evicted from the aforesaid extent of land encroached upon by him. The order of the Collector was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner as per his proceedings dated 7-6-1962. The defendant thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 21/1 of 1965 in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Mahasu, Simla, for declaration of his title to the 17 bighas 7 biswas of land and for setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities. During the pendency of the suit there were negotiations for compromise between the defendant and the Government. The suit come up for trial on 4-5-1968. The Government Pleader late Shri K.C. Pandit, on behalf of the Government prayed for an adjournment to the case. The adjournment was refused whereupon the Government Pleader made a statement in the Court extracted at page 3 of the judgment under appeal. As per this statement, the subject-matter of dispute in the suit was to be settled on the defendant transferring an equal area of 17 bighas 7 biswas of his land in khasra No. 27 to the Government in exchange of the 17 bighas 7 biswas in khasra No. 22 trespassed upon by him. The defendant by his statement extracted at page 4 of the judgment of the learned single Judge accepted the proposal and a compromise decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 21/1 of 65 on the above terms on 4-5-1968. In pursuance to this decree, the defendant obtained mutation of Patta in regard to a much larger extent of 39 bighas 14 biswas of land in khasra No. 22.

3. The present suit is filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh for declaration that the compromise decree aforesaid is not valid and binding on the Government and the mutation of Patta obtained in pursuance thereto is also of no legal effect. There is also a consequential prayer for recovery of possession of the land encroached upon by the defendant.

4. The compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 21/1 of 65 was challenged on the ground that the Government Pleader (late Sh. 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 mis-representation 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 Article 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 d