Case: State Of U.P Vs. M/S Lakshmi Sugar &amp; Oil Mills Ltd

the land in question was never held or occupied by the respondent-Company for cultivation purposes. The exemption claimed by the respondent-company was on that basis declined and the land held to have vested in the Corporation as part of the undertaking. The following passage from the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Hardoi is relevant: "Copies of U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act 1971 (as amended) and CH Form 21 (A) relating to the disputed land has been filed wherein in Column 6 the name of Laxmi Sugar Mill is registered. In Column 8 the disputed land is shown outside consolidation and in column 24 the same is shown as parti zadid on site, parti usar, rugged terrain and uneven hillocks. In this manner there is no evidence/ entry regarding any cultivation on this land or the disputed land to be an agriculture land. Accordingly, the disputed land is found not to be an agricultural land. The disputed land has been acquired in favour of U.P. Sugar Corporation Limited Unit Hardoi under aforesaid gazette. If the appellant had any objection in that regard then, as per law, he was to lodge proceedings against notification before the Honble High Court, but in this regard there is no evidence available on records. Therefore the allegation that the disputed land is an agriculture land and therefore the same is to be registered in the name of Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi instead of U.P. Sugar Corporation Limited, is baseless and devoid of merits. The disputed land has been acquired in favour of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited. It is for this reason the learned consolidation officer has rightly registered the same in the name of U.P. Sugar Corporation Limited Unit Hardoi and the portion of the aforesaid land registered in Account No. 82, 49 of Village Dheear Maholia and Account No. 245 of Village Nagheta has already been registered in the name of U.P. Sugar Corporation Limited Unit Hardoi after deletion of the name of Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills by the S.D.O. Hardoi vide his order dated 14.02.1987. Accordingly, the order of Learned Consolidation Officer is lawful and proper and does not warrant any interference. The appeal does not have any force and is devoid of merit." (emphasis supplied) 18. The order passed by the District Consolidation Director/Collector, Hardoi also concurred with the view taken by the Officers below and held that there was no evidence on record to show that the subject land was ever held or occupied for agricultural purposes or that any agricultural activity was ever carried out on the same. These concurrent findings of fact, in our opinion, could not have been reversed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The High Court obviously failed to appreciate that it was not sitting in appeal over the findings recorded by the authorities below. It could not reappraise the material and hold that the land was held or occupied for cultivation and substitute its own finding for that of the authorities. In as much as the High Court did so, it committed an error. It is noteworthy that the revenue record clearly belied the assertion of the respondent company and described the land as "Parti Kadim Tilla" which meant that the land has not been cultivated for a long time and is in the form of a hillock. 19. It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the claim for exemption from acquisition was even otherwise unfounded keeping in view the fact that the land in question had been treated as exempted under Section 6(1)(a) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 on the ground that the same was held for industrial purposes being a part of the sugar factory. If the land in question was indeed held for cultivation purposes as alleged by the company, it could not remain immune to the rigors of the Ceiling Act. It was excluded from the application of the said Act only because it was treated as industrially attached to the sugar factory. The respondent-company has not been able to effectively refute that contention of the appellant-Corporation. If the land had indeed been treated as industrial for purposes of the Ceiling Act we find it difficult to see how the same could be treated to be held or occupied for cultivation, for the purposes of U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. 20. As noticed earlier it is not the case of the respondent-company that although the land was non-agricultural and although the same was held and occupied for industrial purposes, the industrial purpose for which it was held by the company was un-related to the sugar factory. No such plea having been raised or urged at any stage, the subject land has been rightly taken as vested in the Corporation. The land in question is situate in the immediate vicinity of the sugar factory. The fact situation is thus completely different from that of Burwal Sugar Mills case (supra) where the registered office of the company sought to be taken over was in Kanpur while the sugar factory was itself at Baragaon. Distance between the factory and the asset held by the company may not be a true test for determining whether the same is a part of the undertaking but in the absence of any evidence, showing cultivation, the close proximity of the land to the factory is a strong circumstance that cannot be ignored.21. In the circumstance, therefore, we find it difficult to uphold the order passed by the High Court not only because the High Court acted as if it was sitting in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below but also because the High Court failed to notice that the land was exempted from the Ceiling Act on the ground of being used for industrial purpose which in the context of the present case meant that it was used for the purpose of sugar factory.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. It is evident not only from a plain reading of Section 2(h) (supra) but also the interpretation placed upon the same by this Court that grovelands and lands held for cultivation are excluded from the definition of undertaking. But all other lands and buildings if held or occupied for the purpose of the sugar factory would comprise the undertaking and would upon acquisition vest in thenoticed earlier it is not the case of the respondent-company that although the land was non-agricultural and although the same was held and occupied for industrial purposes, the industrial purpose for which it was held by the company was un-related to the sugar factory. No such plea having been raised or urged at any stage, the subject land has been rightly taken as vested in the Corporation. The land in question is situate in the immediate vicinity of the sugar factory. The fact situation is thus completely different from that of Burwal Sugar Mills case (supra) where the registered office of the company sought to be taken over was in Kanpur while the sugar factory was itself at Baragaon. Distance between the factory and the asset held by the company may not be a true test for determining whether the same is a part of the undertaking but in the absence of any evidence, showing cultivation, the close proximity of the land to the factory is a strong circumstance that cannot be ignored.21. In the circumstance, therefore, we find it difficult to uphold the order passed by the High Court not only because the High Court acted as if it was sitting in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below but also because the High Court failed to notice that the land was exempted from the Ceiling Act on the ground of being used for industrial purpose which in the context of the present case meant that it was used for the purpose of sugar factory.