LexU.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
AUGUST 29, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.}
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Public C01porations-Acquisition of land-Exemption of part of land
C for enjoyment of prope1ty-Altemative land in lieu of exempted land-Direc-
tions regarding.
Land measuring 2.40 acres was the subject matter of acquisition. In
this appeal the question is whether a portion out of the said land measur-
ing 2.18 acres should be exempted from acquisition entitling the appellant-
D Corporation to retain the same for convenient and comfortable enjoyment
of the property. It was agreed between the appellant-Corporation and the
Respondent- Parishad that the said land measuring 2.18 acres adjoining
the appellant's General Manager's residence would be exempted from
acquisition and in lieu thereof the appellant-Corporation would give 2.74
E
acres of land. However, the respondent-Parishad submitted a proposal to
acquire the 2.74 acres land offered by the appellant-Corporation but not
for deletion of 2.18 acres of land.
Allowing the appeal of the Appellant-Corporation, this Court
F
HELD : The appellant and respondent are two public corporations.
The appellant-Corporation is also serving the public purpose. The land is
needed by them for convenient enjoyment of the residence and the staff
quarters. The respondent-Parishad is acquiring land for urban develop-
ment; it would also become a part of its duty to see that the appellant-
G Corporation should have comfortable enjoyment of properties for its
officers and staff. The respondent-Parishad is directed to submit, within
three months from the date of this order, a proposal for the state Govern-
ment to withdraw the proposed acquisition to the extent of 2.18 acres of
land and instead acquire land as offered by the Corporation. The State
Government shall accordingly issue the required notifications within a
H period of two months thereafter. (153-G-H; 154-B-C]
152
I
"
-
,.
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. v. STATE
153
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 407 of A
1986.
From the .Judgment and Order dated 3.10.85 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 13855 of 1983.
G.D. Agarwal, O.P. Rana, Gopal .Jain, Mukul Mudgal, P.N. Gupta
and Pramod Dayal for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The short point in this appeal, which was not argued in the High
Court, is whether the appellant is entitled to retain the land to the extent
B
c
of 2.18 acres out of Survey Nos. 41/l and 41/2. The Collector himself had
written a letter on December 7, 1985 to the Secretary to the Government
stating that a portion of the land of plot Nos. 41/l and 41/2 measuring 2.18
acres out of total 2.40 acres adjoining the General Manager, U.P. State
Sugar Corporation's residence, which is the subject matter of the acquisi-
D
tion, was yet to be developed. Leaving apart mere 3 metres of land around
General Manager's residence would be highly inconvenient. The matter
was examined ·in the meeting of the District Officer Shri Atul Kumar
Gupta, the General Manager of the appellant, and the Executive Engineer
of the respondents-Avam Evam Vikas Parishad ('Parishad', for short). It
was decided in the said meeting that in exchange of the acquired land, 2.18
acres of land, the appellant would give an extent of 2.74 acres of land in
plot No. 41/4. The Parishad was directed to send a proposal to acquire the
land of plot No. 41/4 and also exemption of the land to the extent of 2.18
acres of land adjoining the General Manager's residence. The Parishad, by
its letter dated Fcfuruary 14, 1983 submitted proposal to acquire the land
in plot no. 41/4, But not for deletion of 2.18 acres of land in plot Nos. 41/1
and 41/2. This would clearly indicate that ground survey was conducted in
consultation with the respective officers and found that deletion of 2.18
acres of land in survey Nos. 41/l and 41/2 was necessary for convenient
E
F
and comfortable enjoyment of the property by the appellant-Corporation. G
After all, these are two public corporations and the appellant is also
serving the public purpose. The land is needed by them for convenient
enjoyment of the residence and the staff quarters. The Parishad is acquir-
ing land for urban development; it would also become a part of its duty to
see that the appellant-Corporation should have comfortable enjoyment of H
154
SUPREMEExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.