Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a land acquisition dispute between two public bodies: the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (appellant) and the State of U.P. along with the Avam Evam Vikas Parishad (respondents). The Parishad had proposed acquisition of land for urban development, including a portion of land adjoining the General Manager's residence of the appellant corporation. The appellant sought exemption of 2.18 acres out of Survey Nos. 41/1 and 41/2, claiming that this land was necessary for the convenient and comfortable enjoyment of the residential quarters and staff facilities. The Collector had earlier written a letter on December 7, 1985, indicating that leaving merely 3 metres of land around the General Manager's residence would be highly inconvenient. A meeting involving the District Officer, the General Manager, and the Executive Engineer had decided that in exchange for the acquired land, the appellant would give 2.74 acres in plot No. 41/4. However, the Parishad, by its letter dated February 14, 1983, submitted a proposal to acquire plot No. 41/4 but did not include the deletion of 2.18 acres from plots 41/1 and 41/2. The present point regarding entitlement to retain the land was not argued in the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant submitted a plan marking the necessary land in yellow. The Court observed that both parties were public corporations serving public purposes, and the Parishad as an urban development authority had a duty to ensure that the appellant corporation could comfortably enjoy its properties for officers and staff. The Court found the appellant's request genuine. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the Parishad to submit a proposal within three months to the State Government to withdraw the proposed acquisition to the extent of 2.18 acres in plot Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 and instead acquire plot No. 41/4 as offered by the Corporation. The State Government was directed to issue the required notifications within two months thereafter. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Exemption/Withdrawal from Acquisition - Public Purpose and Convenient Enjoyment - Not mentioned - The appellant, a public corporation, sought exemption of 2.18 acres adjoining the General Manager's residence from land acquisition proposed by the Parishad for urban development - The Court found that both parties were public corporations and the Parishad had a duty to ensure the appellant's comfortable enjoyment of properties for its officers and staff - Held that the request was genuine and directed the Parishad to submit a proposal within three months to withdraw the acquisition to the extent of 2.18 acres in plot Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 and instead acquire plot No. 41/4 as offered by the Corporation; the State Government was directed to issue required notifications within two months thereafter.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to retain 2.18 acres of land out of Survey Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 from acquisition.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Parishad directed to submit proposal within three months to State Government to withdraw proposed acquisition to the extent of 2.18 acres in plot Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 and instead acquire plot No. 41/4 as offered by the Corporation. State Government directed to issue required notifications within two months thereafter. No costs.
Law Points
- Public corporations serving public purpose should have comfortable enjoyment of properties
- acquiring authority has duty to consider genuine need for exemption
- court can direct proposal for withdrawal and substitution of land
