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.