U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  INSC
436 (29 August 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 SCC Supl. (3) 538 JT 1995 (6) 545 1995 SCALE (5)182
O R D
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 of 2.18 acres out of
Survey Nos. 41/1 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. 41/1 and 41/2 measuring 2.18
acres out of total 2.40 acres adjoining the General Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corpopration's
residence, which is the subject matter of the acquisition, 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.
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 February 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. 41/1 and 41/2 was necessary for convenient and
comfortable enjoyment of the property by the appellant- corporation.
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 acquiring land for urban
development; it would also become a part of its duty to see that the appellant Ccorporation
should have comfortable enjoyment of properties for its officers and staff.
appellant has submitted before us a plan, marking the land in yellow which is
necessary for it to enjoy the land and which needs to be exempted from
acquisition. We find the request is genuine. We, therefore, direct the Parishad
to submit, within three months from today, a proposal for the State Government
to withdraw the proposed acquisition to the extent of 2.18 acres of land in
plot Nos.41/1 and 41/2 and instead acquire land of plot No. 41/4, shown in red
in the plan, as offered by the Corporation. The State Government is directed to
issue required notifications within a period of two months thereafter.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.