Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
29 August 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 152 · 1995 INSC 515
Also cited as
  • (1995) Supp 3 SCC 538 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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/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 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 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 and comfortable enjoyment of the property by the appellant-Corporation.

p. 153, margin C

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 development; it would also become a part of its duty to see that the appellant-Corporation should have comfortable enjoyment of properties for its officers and staff.

pp. 153–154, margin G

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.

p. 154, margin A

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 154, margin C