Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (3) 538 JT 1995 (6) 545
1995 SCALE (5)182
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 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.
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 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-
Ccorporation.
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 acquiring land for urban
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
The 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.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.