LexSTATE OF U.P. versus M/S LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 345 STATE OF U.P. v. M/S LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8085 of 2013 etc). SEPTEMBER 12, 2013. [T.S. THAKUR AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] UTTAR PRADESH SUGAR UNDERTAKINGS (ACQUISITION) ACT, 1971: A B c s.2(h)(vi) read with s.3 - 'Scheduled undertaking' - Vesting of, in Sugar Corporation - Land of $Ugar factory shown in revenue records as "Parti Kadim Tilla" (land not cultivated for a long time and in the form of hillock), held by consolidation authorities as vested in the Corporation - High o Court directing to restore the name of sugar Company in revenue records - Held: All the three statutory authorities concurrently held that there was no evidence on record to show that the subject land was ever held or occupied by the respondent-Company for agricultural purposes or that any E agricultural activity was ever carried out on the same -- These concurrent findings of fact could not have been reversed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction -- Therefore, the subject land has been rightly taken as vested in the Corporation. CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA 1950: F Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of - High Court reversing the concurrent findings of all the three consolidation authorities - Held: Whether or not the respondent-company held or occupied the subject land for G cultivation was essentially a question of fact, answered against the company -- High Court failed to appreciate that it was not sitting in appeal over the findings recorded by the authorities below -- It could not reappraise the material and hold that the 345 H 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A land was held or occupied for cultivation and substitute its own finding for that of the authorities -- High Court, thus, committed an error - Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. B The sugar-factory belonging to the respondent- company stood vested in the appellant-U.P. Sugar Corporation w.e.f. 28.10.1984, in terms of s.3 of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 2.9.1992 directed that the subject land belonging to sugar-factory be C recorded in the name of the appellant-Corporation in the revenue records. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the S9ttlement Officer, Consolidation and its revision was dismissed by the District Consolidation Director/Collector. However, the High Court in writ D petition reversed the orders of the consolidation authorities and directed to delete the name of the appellant-Corporation and restore that of the respondent- sugar-Company in the revenue records. E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 2(h)(vi) of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 lays down that all lands, other than those held or occupied for purposes of F cultivation and grovelands, are treated as being part of the 'scheduled undertaking' which would upon acquisition vest in the appellant-Corporation, provided such lands and buildings are "held or occupied for purposes of the sugar factory". The test is whether the asset or any interest therein is held or occupied 'for G purpose of a sugar factory'. If the answer is in the affirmative, the same is treated to be a part of the scheduled undertaking that would vest in the appellant- Corporation upon acquisition. [para 14] [354-G-H; 355-C] H 1.2. It is evident not only from a plain reading of s:2(h) STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS 347 LTD. but also the interpretation placed upon the same by this• A Court that grovelands and lands held for cultivation are excluded from the definition of undertaking. But all other lands and buildings if held or occupied for the purpose of the sugar factory would comprise the undertaking and would upon acquisition vest in the Corporation. [para 16] B [356-B] 1.3. In the case at hand, it was not the case of the respondent-company that the land in question was groveland nor was it the case of the company that the land even though not meant for cultivation was held for C a purpose other than the sugar factory. All the three statutory authorities concurrently held that there was no evidence on record to show that the subject land was ever held or occupied by the respondent-company for agricultural purposes or that any agricultural activity was D ever carried out on the same. These concurrent findings of fact coul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.