Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by a Registered Limited Company, known as M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi, against the three orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities, that is, by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi, Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi and the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, dated 2.9.1992, 24.1.1997 and 6.12.2006, respectively, by which the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation has been recorded in the revenue and consolidation records in respect of the agricultural land held by the petitioner No. 1-company. The interpretation of the Acquisition Notification involved in the present case is whether the land separate from the acquired Sugar Factory/Mill and its appurtenant land would be treated to be agricultural land or part of the Sugar Factory/Mill.
2. The petitioner No. 2, Saran Vinod, claims himself to be the authorised signatory, appointed by the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 1-company, vide a resolution dated 22nd August, 1983 to present this writ petition and pursue the case on behalf of the petitioner No. 1-Company.
3. As per learned Counsel for the petitioners, M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi was established in the year 1933. It was carrying out its manufacturing process of sugar and other bye products, after crushing the sugar cane in its Sugar Factory/Mill situated in the District of Hardoi. The said Company is still registered with the Registrar, Companies at Kanpur and is still in existence. It is having its Registered Office at L.G.-28, Tej Kumar Plaza, Hazratganj, Lucknow. The Sugar Mill consists of the Factory Building, Ancillary Building, Godowns and appurtenant lands meant for parking of the vehicles, sugar production centre, weighing machine (Kanta), open space for storing Begasse, pressed-mud and other bye-products. The total land with the petitioner-Company was 86.7Acres approximately. On a part of this land, that is, covering about 35 Acres of land, the petitioners' Sugar Factory was established. Apart from aforesaid buildings, there existed open space meant for manufacturing of sugar and storage of the same and other bye products. In addition to this, the petitioner-Company was also having agricultural land, Temple, Primary School and Intermediate College meant for imparting education to the Mills workers. There was also grove land. More than 50 Acres of agricultural land owned by the petitioner-Company is situated in two Villages, that is, Nanakganj Grunt and Dheer Maholia. Attention of the Court has been drawn on special features of the agricultural land that the agricultural land situate in Nanakganj Grunt was separated by boundary wall from the Sugar Mill's land and the agricultural land at Village Dheer Maholia was alongside railway siding. The petitioner-Company was carrying out its Sugar manufacturing process and other operations. Lateron, the Sugar Factory/Mill was acquired by the State Government vide a notification dated 28.10.1984 in furtherance of the relevant provisions contained in U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act of 1971).
4. For a substantial long period of time, that is till 26.8.1992, the name of the petitioner-Company has remained recorded as tenureholder in respect of the agricultural holdings, as indicated above, spread over in two villages in the District of Hardoi. The area was notified under the Consolidation operations on 26.8.1992. An officer of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation wrote a letter to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi for recording the name of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation as the tenureholder in respect of the agricultural land also on the ground that the Sugar Factory had vested in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation on 28.10.1992, that is, the date of aforementioned notification of acquisition by which the Sugar Mill was taken over by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Pursuant to the said application and on the statement of one Sishir Vajpayee, the Law Assistant of the Corporation, the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation was recorded in the consolidation records by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi and a formal order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 2.9.1992. On the same day, the Consolidation Officer, Hardoi has passed the order directing that on Khata No. 132, in C.H. Form-23, in respect of the total area, that is, 122/4, the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation would be recorded in place of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this order was an ex parte order as the same was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioners.
6. Being aggrieved of the said ex parte order, dated 2.9.1992, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners had filed an Appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. This Appeal was rejected by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 24.1.1997, taking altogether different ground holding that the appellant, the petitioner-Company, should have approached the High Court against the acquisition notification dated 28.10.1984. Since it was not done and the Sugar Mill was acquired, the assertion of the petitioners/Appellant before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not be accepted. A Revision was preferred by the petitioner- Company before the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, but he also without appreciating the factual and legal position had blindly approved the orders passed by the lower Consolidation authorities by rejecting the Revision of the petitioners.
7. A specific stand has been taken by the petitioners throughout before the Consolidation Authorities that the 'Agricultural land' which was separate from the Sugar Factory/Mill's area and the land appurtenant to the Sugar Factory/Mill was exempted under the Acquisition Act of 1971. It was a separate property, that is, the agricultural land, which was being cultivated by the petitioner No. 1-Company. Since the agricultural land is exempted under the Acquisition Act as such it has been erroneously recorded in favour of U.P. State Sugar Corporation. The Consolidation Authorities had excluded from consideration this fact and did not appreciate the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Acquisition Act of 1971. This was an exemption clause by which the agricultural land was excluded from the acquisition proceedings. For convenience, the provision contained in Section 2(h) of the said Acquisition Act of 1971 is quoted below:
(h) scheduled undertaking means an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of sugar by means of vacuum pans and with the aid of mechanical power in factory specified [in any of the schedules to this Act], and comprises:
(i) all plant, machinery and other equipment (including milling plant, boiling house equipment, other sugar machinery, cane unloading equipment and power plant), weighbridges, cranes, chimneys, turbines and boilers (including the foundations, superstructure and roofing thereof) pertaining to that factory;
(ii) any engineering workshop, including machinery and equipment thereof;
(iii) any chemical laboratory including any apparatus and equipment thereof;
(iv) any motor or other vehicle or locomotive, or railway sidings pertaining to that factory;
(v) any dispensary or hospital or community or welfare centre exclusively for the benefit of workmen and other persons employed in that factory;
(vi) all lands (other than lands held or occupied for purposes of cultivation and grove lands) and buildings held or occupied for purposes of that factory [including buildings pertaining to any of the properties and assets hereinabove specified, and guest houses and residences of directions, managerial personnel, staff and workmen or of any other person as lessee or licensee, any store houses, molasses, tanks roads, bridges, drains, culverts, tubewells, water storage or distribution system and other civil engineering works] including any leasehold interest there :[emphasis supplied]
(vii) all limestone quarries pertaining to that factory, including any mining lease relating thereto;
(viii) all electrical installations (including any plant or equipment for the generation or transmission of energy), telephone equipment, furniture and fixtures pertaining to that factory or to any property or asset hereinbefore specified;
(ix) all tools, spare parts and stores pertaining to that factory;
(x) all firearms for the use of watch and ward staff employed in that factor;
(xi) all maps, plans, sections, drawings and designs pertaining to that factory;
(xii) all sugarcane, sugar in the process of manufacture or production and stocks of sugar and molasses and all begasse and pressmud;
(xiii) all books of account, registers and other documents pertaining to the factory or to any property or asset hereinbefore specified, but does not include cash in-hand, cash at bank, advances towards any income or other tax, investments and books, debts or rights, liabilities and obligations respecting any other contract;
8. The petitioner-Company had assailed the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities on various grounds. As per Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Consolidation Authorities had placed reliance on the acquisition notification dated 28.10.1984 and on the basis of the said notification dated 28.10.1984 and on the statement of the Law Assistant of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, the name of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation was recorded in the revenue and consolidation records, expunging the petitioner No. 1Company's name. Attention of the Court has further been drawn to various paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by one Sri Ashok Kumar Agnihotri, Consolidation Officer, on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Even the Consolidation Authorities have not denied that the land was not agricultural land. It has remained recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1-Company, right up to holding of consolidation proceedings. No finding has been recorded in the three judgments rendered by the Consolidation Authorities that the petitioners' case was covered by the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Acquisition Act of 1971, as quoted above. The agricultural land ought to have remained recorded in the name of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi as was continuing since 1933. The Consolidation Authorities have disturbed the unchallenged revenue entries after about 59 years. In the Basic year entry also, the petitioner No. 1-Company was recorded as tenureholder. Interestingly, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, at the time of initiating consolidation operations, has not raised any dispute on the name of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi which was continuing in the Basic Year Entry even thereafter. Moreover, no such dispute was ever referred to the Consolidation Officer by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as per the procedure prescribed in Sections 9, 9-A or 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
9. Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has also drawn attention of the Court that there were two kinds of land (1) agricultural land used for agricultural operations/cultivation and (2) land in Factory/Mill's premises and the appurtenant land used for storage of manufactured products, parking of vehicles, place for Weighing Machine (Kanta), Stock Yard and the land used solely for the purposes of operations going on in the Sugar Mill. This land was certainly covered by the Acquisition Act of 1971. The Factory land was covered by the notification dated 28.10.1984. He has laid emphasis that the land in dispute, which was recorded as agricultural land under the tenholdership of the petitioner No. 1-Company, was solely used for cultivation and agricultural purposes and a case under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was initiated against the petitioner No. 1Company pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted by the
10. Additional Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardoi. This fact shows that the agricultural activities were being carrying out on the agricultural land in dispute. This report of the Additional Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardai, a competent Revenue authority, is of 13.11.1996. The said report of the Additional Tehsildar has been brought on record to show existence of crops, like Ravi crop, Mustered crop, Paddy and Zwar Fodder in many fields. There were some Parati (Unirrigated land) and there were groves and manure pits.
11. He has submitted that the Additional Tehsildar's report dated 13.11.1996, which was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hardoi on 14.11.1996 clearly shows that, except Plot No. 36/1, the whole land, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, was cultivatory agricultural land. There was also a grove of two hundreds Eucalyptus trees standing thereon. The plotwise details, Khasra entries and other documents etc. were also placed alongwith the Additional Tehsildar's report. In view of the report of a competent Revenue officer, the observations of the Consolidation Officer, without inspecting the agricultural land, that there was no agricultural activities was incorrect and unfounded. Thus, the finding appears to be perverse. There were also buildings of the College, Temple on the land and there was grove land as well. The College building and Temple cannot vest in the Sugar Corporation by virtue of the aforesaid notification of 1984.
12. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the revenue entries, Zote Akar Patra, 2-Ka, which was prepared around the date of vesting, that is, 28.10.1984. This shows that the land in question was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records. On a large Khata of land, at the relevant time, agricultural operations were going on and crops were standing on the plots. The Zote Akar Patra and other relevant records have been placed on record.
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Consolidation means to amalgamate a number of plots or small parts of land in a Village, which are scattered at number of places, into one or two places so as to form/carve out a compact Chak and reduce their Chak to provide a large Chunk/plot of agricultural plot. In other words, it is the redistribution of land among the cultivators in such a manner so that the agriculturists may be provided with compact Chaks suitable for agricultural operations. As regards, the re-arrangements of plots, the Groves, Abadi lands and non agricultural lands are excluded from consolidation proceedings.
14. Now coming on Sanjay Mehrotra's approaching this Court. The Court has noted that the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Authroised Signatory by the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 1-Company earlier on 22nd August, 1983. The petitioner No. 2 continued to function as Authorised Signatory. Thereafter, the new Board of Directors in their meeting held on 4.6.2007 again ratified and resolved that the petitioner No. 2 would continue to function as Authorised Signatory. Copies of the relevant extracts of the minutes of both the meetings have been annexed as Annexures SA-1 and SA2 to the supplementary affidavit.
15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as regards the allegations made by one Sanjay Mehrotra, he has filed the Impleadment Application on flimsy grounds but thereafter he has not turned up on many dates when the case was listed. He is not a Director/share-holder of the Petitioner n.1-Company. He has filed the application for Impleadment alleging himself to be the power of attorney of one of the alleged Directors and on the strength of shares, which merely constitutes 2% of the entire shares being held by Sri Rajbahadur Seth and Smt. Rajshir Mehrotra etc. It is relevant to submit that in the consolidation proceedings, Sanjay Mehrotra was not the party at any stage. Neither Sri Rajbahadur Seth nor his attorney, i.e., Sanjay Mehrotra ever claimed in any proceedings before any court that they are the owners of the land in dispute. If they were aggrieved by the action of the petitioner No. 1Company, they have appropriate remedy to avail. The petitioner No. 2, being the Authorised Signatory was litigating all throughout which is evident from the documents of the Consolidation Authorities as also from the report of the Additional Tehsildar dated 13.11.1996. It appears that just to mislead and prejudice the mind, an stranger, that is, Sanjay Mehrotra, has been imposed, who filed an application for Impleadment for the first time only in the year 2008.
16. It is noteworthy that Sanjay Mehrotra claiming himself to be son of Sri Daya Vinod, resident of Lucknow has filed several applications from time to time in this case seeking his impleadment. His application has been allowed and he has been impleaded as Respondent No. 7 vide order dated 19th Jauary, 2010. Sanjay Mehrotra claims himself to be the owner of the land in question. He has submitted in his pleadings that the petitioner No. 2, Saran Vinod, who is his real uncle, has filed the present writ petition in his own interest. He was not Authorised Signatory. He has also challenged the meeting of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 1Company held on 22nd August, 1983. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on an affidavit sworn by his Maternal Uncle (Mama), Sri K.C. Seth. His father, Sri Daya Vinod, who was a Director of the petitioner No. 1-Company, had died on 3rd December, 1997. According to him, he alone is entitled for all the land and properties which were not acquired by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. He has raised several personal allegations against his own Uncle, that is, the petitioner No. 2, Saran Vinod. His versions, as spelt out in his affidavits (in Hindi ) have been perused by the Court.
17. Saran Vinod, petitioner No. 2, has filed his own affidavit denying the allegations made by his nephew Sanjay Mehrotra. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has strongly opposed the endeavours of Sanjay Mehrotra in entering this litigation claiming himself to be the power of attorney holder, who were merely having 2% share in the petitioner No. 1-Company. It appears that just to mislead and prejudice the mind of the Court, a stranger has been imposed with an ulterior motive just to create a confusion.
18. As per Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sanjay Mehrotra is neither a Director nor shareholder of the petitioner No. 1Company. He is alleging himself to be the power of attorney holder of one of the alleged Directors, on the strength of shares being held by Sri Rajbahadur Seth and Smt. Rajshri Mehrotra. These shares constitute merely 2% of the total shares. The persons having only 2% shares of the Company have not come forward before this Court. A power of attorney holder, Sanjay Mehrotra has entered the litigation by filing miscellaneous applications, repeating his same submissions that he is a necessary party and has interest in the land in dispute.
19. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sanjay Mehrotra never appeared on the scene when the consolidation proceedings were going on in the District of Hardoi. No objections were ever filed by him staking his claim as owner of the entire agricultural land before the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Neither his father nor Sri Rajbahadur Seth or his mother, Smt. Rajshri Mehrotra ever put-forth their claim in any proceedings before any Consolidation courts or Revenue courts. Even the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner No. 1-Company.
20. Saran Vinod, petitioner No. 2, has categorically submitted that the present writ petition is being contested on behalf of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi. The said Company is still Registered having its registration still alive with the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner No. 2, Saran Vinod, was legally and validly appointed as Authorised Signatory/Representative by the Board of Directors of the Company on 22nd August, 1983, that is, 24 years ago. The proceedings have again been ratified by the Board of Directors of the Company on 4th June, 2007. It was categorically submitted before the Court through an affidavit dated 30.1.2008, which is on record, that the petitioner No. 2 has not claimed himself to be the owner of the land in question. It was never a case of the petitioners that the land in question was the personal property of the owners of the Mill. All the land was recorded in the name of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi. The land in question was not recorded in someone's individual name whereas Sanjay Mehrotra is claiming individual ownership on the agricultural land in dispute.
21. This Court has also perused the various affidavits filed by Sanjay Mehrotra from time to tome, pleadings of the parties and the other relevant materials brought on record. It is amply clear that the land in dispute had always remained recorded in the name of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi, which was a party in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The petitioner No. 1Company has contested the case before the three Consolidation Authorities and in this Court also. Even in this writ petition, no individual has sought any relief in personam. However, in the interest of justice, Sanjay Mehrotra's version has also been taken into account by the Court. The Court is unable to grant the reliefs sought for by him as he is Respondent No. 7 and the Court has to adjudicate a dispute raised by the petitioner No. 1-Company against the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Sanjay Mehrotra has failed to pursuade the Court that he is a person aggrieved and his rights have been been infringed by the take over of the agricultural land of the petitioner No. 1-Company.
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, after laying much emphasis of Sub-clause (iv) and (xii) of Section 2(h) of the Acquisition Act of 1971, has submitted that on account of acquisition of the Sugar Factory, the agricultural land would not vest in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation on the date of vesting, that is, on 28.10.1984. The Respondents in violation of the statutory provisions and by concealing the material facts got the agricultural land recorded in their name. Taking advantage of being a Government Undertaking, undue pressure was put on the Officers of the Consolidation Department to record the name of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation in the consolidation records. The agricultural land under cultivation and connected with the agricultural operations would be defined as agricultural land within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the other relevant provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He has placed reliance on Paragraphs 8 and 17(6) of the judgment reported in : AIR 2001 All. 100, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Raza Bulland Sugar Company Limited and Ors. and Paragraph 16 of the judgment reported in 2003 (94) RD 323, Dina Nath Verma v. Gokaran and Ors. wherein Paragraph 16 it has been held as under:
It may be also mentioned that the four houses are existing in agricultural land admittedly, there is no declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of this Court in Indra Jeet Singh v. Sardar Arjun Singh and Ors. It was held in this case, that if no declaration in respect of the land is made under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the land did not cease to be land. That even if certain construction exists on the land, it is not material.
23. It is submitted that the Consolidation Authorities in their counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition have admitted that M/s Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills, Hardoi was taken over by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation vide Notification No. 17 of 1984 dated 28.10.1984 and with effect from the said date. The said Firm is the Unit of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. In the village in question, since the consolidation operation was going, the U.P. State Sugar Corporation submitted an application for recording the land in the consolidation records in the name of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. The order was passed only on the basis of Gazette Notification. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit the Consolidation authorities have admitted paragraph 13 of the writ petition which are to the effect that the land in question is agricultural land and it was recorded in the name of the petitioner No. 1 and further that the land use of the property in question was not changed.
24. Submissions put-forth in Paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit and other documents were read before the Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following judgmens in support of his submissions:
1. : AIR 2001 All. 100, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Raza Bulland Sugar Company Limited and Ors.
2. 2003 (94) RD 323, Dina Nath Verma v. Gokaran and Ors.
3. Judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 8172(MB) of 2006 decided on 24.1.2007.
4. : 2004 (4) SCC 98, U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Burwal Sugar Mill.
5. : AIR 1970 SC 564 R.C. Cooper v. Union of India.
25. Lastly, he has summed up that the impugned orders, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi are wholly illegal, unjust and improper. Thus, the Collector, Hardoi and the other concerned Revenue and Consolidation Authorities of the Hardoi may be directed to record the name of the petitioner No. 1-Company in place of U.P. State Sugar Corporation in the revenue records over the land in dispute, details of which have been given in Annexures12 and 13 of the writ petition. He has pointed out that Khata No. 132, which was directed to be recorded in the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation has been re-numbered as Khata No. 0035. The total land in Village Nanakganj Grunt is about 46 Acres, which has been recorded in the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Similarly, in Village Dheer Maholia the land of the petitioner No. 1Company is about 2.5 Acres. About four Acres of land, as mentioned in Annexure-13 to the writ petition, belongs to the petitioner No. 1Company. It has also been prayed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that a direction may also be issued to the Corporation not to create any hindrance or interference in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute.
26. Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent U.P. State Sugar Corporation, has strongly resisted the writ petition. He has taken the Court to various paragraphs of the counter affidavit and the documents filed alongwith the counter affidavit. At the outset he has submitted that the Registered Office of the petitioner No. 1-Company has not been indicated in the memo of the writ petition and Sarad Vinod does not appear to be the Authorised Signatory of the petitioner No. 1-Company. M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi has become defunct and is non-existent. According to him, the Registrar of the Companies and Appropriate Authority should have appointed Official Liquidator of the Company. Saran Vinod, petitioner No. 2, has been authorised only to discharge limited functions and duties. He has supported the judgments and orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi. The provision of Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is not applicable in the present case and is required to be pressed into service only in the circumstances where the land was being used for agricultural purposes. As per CH-2A Form, which were prepared some times in the year 1986, the land in dispute was shown to be Abadi, Parti, Road, Nala, Tila and Usar. The land was not meant for the purposes of cultivation and, therefore, ceased to be exempted from acquisition under Section 2(h) of the Acquisition Act of 1971. The land of Khata No. 132 was not being used for agricultural purposes. In fact, it was non-cultivable land.
27. Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, has submitted that the land of the petitioner No. 1Company on which the Sugar Factory is existing is a contiguous patch of land being used for the Factory/Mill purposes as well as for the residential quarters of the workmen and community centres like School and Temple etc. The land in the use of the Factory is neither grove land nor a cultivable land which could have been used by the erstwhile owners for the purposes of cultivation. The open land was being used for cane yard and for dumping pressed-mud, Boiler Aish etc. This land was being used by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation for the same purposes. However, some encroachments have been made by the residents of the vicinity on the land of the Mill. Some land was also encroached by several villagers. Certified copy of the map of the land of Nanakganj Grunt, District Hardoi and the site plan was also shown to the Court. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, that in fact, the additional land of the petitioner No. 1 Company at Japra, Pargana Gopamau had been declared surplus in ceiling operations.
28. As per Sri Sinha, learned Counsel for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, the three Consolidation courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the land was not agricultural land nor it was being used for agricultural operations. This land was being used for the industrial purposes from the very beginning when the Sugar Factory/Mill was established. This land was not accounted for as the same was not agricultural holding used for cultivatory purposes by the erstwhile M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi. He has denied that Mustered, Paddy and other crops are standing on the land in dispute. According to him, Eucalyptus trees are also standing on someone else's land. Since consolidation operations were notified in the Village, the entire revenue records came under the control of the Consolidation authorities and as such the U.P. State Sugar Corporation had sought mutation in the Revenue records of the Village in its favour. Its name was rightly recorded in the Revenue and Consolidation records by the concerned Consolidation Authorities of the Consolidation Department.
29. He has also challenged the Advocate Commissioner's report, submitted in furtherance of the court's order, on the ground that the report does not draw a picture of the year 1984. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the land was being used for the agricultural purposes by M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi in the year 1984. Sri Sinha, learned Counsel for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation has taken the Court to the findings and observations made by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the other Consolidation authorities. It has been admitted by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation that the Temple, Primary School and Intermediate College were acquired and vest in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation in view of Section 2(h) (v) of the Acquisition Act of 1971. It appears that the petitioners may have other enterprises, businesses and the properties, not related to the scheduled undertaking, which was not acquired and not vest in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. The U.P. State Sugar Corporation has already approached the District Authorities for removal of the encroachments from its land, which was acquired in the year 1984 from the petitioner No. 1-Company. In fact, no agricultural activities were being carried out on the land in dispute by the petitioners. The grove land had also been acquired by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation on 28.10.1984.
30. According to Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, there is no provision under the relevant Acquisition Act of 1971 for divesting the vested land in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation in favour of petitioner No. 1-Company. In fact, no grove land or the agricultural land of the erstwhile owners was acquired and vested in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. The answering U.P. State Sugar Corporation has already clarified its stand before the Sub Divisional Officer, Hardoi in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The written statement filed by the General Manager has been brought on record. There were illegal encroachments on the land of U.P. State Sugar Corporation and the same was to be removed by the Authorities.
31. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments rendered by the Consolidation Authorities, the pleadings of the parties and the provisions contained in the relevant Acquisition Act of 1971, as referred to in the foregoing paragraphs.
32. It is admitted to the parties that the Sugar Factory/Sugar Mill of the petitioners was acquired vide Notification No. 17 of 1984 issued on 28.10.1984 under the relevant provisions contained in the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. This Court has taken note of the fact that till 1992, the name of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi had remained recorded as tenureholder on the agricultural holdings. The same land being the agricultural land was notified under the Consolidation Operations on 26.8.1992. On an application submitted by an Officer of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, on the basis of the statement of one Shishir Vajpayee, Law Assistant of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, the Consolidation Officer had recorded the name of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation in the revenue and consolidation records on 2.9.1992. The names of the petitioner No. 1-Company was expunged from the records. It appears that on the same day, the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi had passed a formal order directing that on Khata No. 132, in Form No. CH-23, in respect of the total area of 122/4, the name of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation would be recorded. Any change in the revenue and consolidation records is a very important and land mark event, thus, the Consolidation Officer ought to have issued notice to the petitioner No. 1-Company whose name had remained recorded upto the year 1992 in the Revenue records and who was going to be affected by this order. Opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioners before expunging the longstanding, uncontroverted and unchallenged revenue entries right from the year 1933 till 2.9.1992. It appears that the foundation of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation was laid on 2.9.1992 and it was done by uprooting M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi from its agricultural land. There is nothing on record to explain as to why U.P. State Sugar Corporation has not taken any action during the period from 28th October, 1984 to 26th August, 1992 for getting the revenue entries corrected in respect of the agricultural land, which was under cultivation and ownership of the petitioner No. 1-Company. Nothing has been spelt out in the order as to why hurriedly an application was submitted, which was entertained and on the basis of statement of a Law Assistant of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, the longstanding, unchallenged and uncontroverted entries in the revenue records were disturbed.
33. This Court has also perused the statutory form, that is, CH Form No. 23, which shows that several plots of land were described as agricultural land. In the present case, the criminal proceedings, under Section 145, Cr.P.C. had also taken place between the parties. Admittedly, a detailed report was submitted by the Additional Tehsildar, a competent and responsible Revenue Authority before the court of Sub Divisional Officer on 13.11.1996, copy of the report of the Additional Tehsildar is annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. This report was duly approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 14.11.1996. In his report, dated 13.11.1996, the Additional Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardoi, has submitted that he alongwith Supervisor Kanoonago/Revenue Inspector, Yadu Nath Singh, concerned Lekhpal Ram Prakash Misra and Consolidation/Chakbandi Lekhpal, Mahboob Ali had visited the spot for inspection and measurements. He has visited the site and inspected the plots and Gatas. The said report says that the land in dispute was initially recorded in the name of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi, but under the orders of the Consolidation Officer, the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation has been recorded. The spot inspection revealed that the Ravi and Kharif crops, that is, Mustered, Paddy, Zwar Fodder, Sugar Cane crops were standing on the plots in dispute. Except plot No. 36/1, the entire land was under agricultural operations. There were two hundred Eucalyptus trees, which were also standing and there was some unirrigated/parti land. The C.H. Form-23 also draws the same picture that the land was being used for the agricultural purposes only. These documents and the report of the Additional Tehsildar could not have been ignored by the Consolidation courts.
34. It is noteworthy that the criminal proceedings, under Section 145, Cr.P.C were initiated by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, in respect of the land in dispute. In view of the above report and the nature of the dispute raised before the Sub Divisional Officer, Hardoi, the Consolidation Authorities had committed perversity in holding that there was no agricultural activity on the land in dispute. The Additional Tehsildar is a competent Revenue Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer, while exercising power under Section 145, Cr.P.C., is a court of law, thus, the judicial notice taken by the court and findings recorded on the basis of Additional Tehsildar's report cannot be ignored.
35. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that no dispute was raised by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation when the Consolidation proceedings commenced. No objections, worth the name, have been filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer against the longstanding, uncontroverted, unchallenged and continuing entry in the name of the petitioner No. 1-Company in the revenue records. This entry in the Revenue records was continuing from the Basic year's records. Even no dispute was referred to the Consolidation Officer by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as required under Sections 9, 9-A and 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
36. In the present case, specific stand of the petitioners was that the agricultural land is exempted under the Acquisition Act of 1971 by which the Sugar Factory/Mill was acquired by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation. It is noteworthy that the provisions of Section 2(h) of the said Act are specific and clear that the lands held or occupied for the purposes of cultivation and grove lands were not to be acquired. The said provisions have been quoted in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus, it is amply clear from the orders of the statute that the Scheduled Undertakings would not include the agricultural lands. Acquisition Act of 1971 specifically differentiates between a Company owning a Sugar Undertaking and the Sugar Undertaking itself. The Company is a much wider entity as against the Undertaking, which is only one of the assets of the Company. It appears that the Legislature deliberately did not touch the Company and acquired the Undertaking as per the aims and objects of the Legislature and while doing so it has specifically exempted the lands held or occupied for the purposes of agriculture and grove lands.
37. There appears to be substance in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners, based on documentary evidence, that on account of acquisition of Sugar Factory/Mill, except the area of Sugar Mill's operations, the agricultural land would not vest in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation on the said date, that is, on 28.10.1984. The agricultural land owned by the petitioner No. 1-Company has to be separated from the land, which was under the Mill's/Factory's premises or the Factory area and the other land appurtenant to the Factory Area, as defined under the relevant provisions of the Factories Act or the Industrial Disputes Act.
38. The Court has noted that sufficient land, having an area of approximately 35 Acres, was available with the Sugar Mill, which was required for the purposes of stocking sugar cane, manufacturing products, Begasse, pressed-mud and other bye-products. This Court has also noted that certain excisable items are produced in a Sugar Mill, for this purposes the whole Factory area is covered by a boundary wall and Gates are installed. When manufactured products, molasses or sugar are taken out of the Factory Area, the Gate Passes are issued. No Vehicle can enter or come out of the Mills premises without obtaining Gate passes for the purposes. In the present case, the area and the land in dispute, which is situated in the Villages Nanakganj Grunt and Dheer Maholia, is a separate land, which was under cultivation where agricultural operations were being carried out by the petitioner No. 1-Company. What has been acquired by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation under the Acquisition Act of 1971 was the Mill/Factory area, its buildings, premises and the connected land which was being used for the purposes of the operation of the Sugar Mill. The land, which has remained recorded as agricultural land upto the year 1992 and was covered by the consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could not be said to be the land used by the Sugar Factory/Mill for its process of manufacturing sugar.
39. From perusal of the Revenue records, that is, Zote Chakbandi Akar Patra-2A, which was prepared in and around the date of vesting, that is, 28.10.1984, it is amply clear that the land in question was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records on a large Khata of land. At that time also, that is, in the year 1984, different crops grown on the plots had been shown in the Akar Patra/Consolidation Map and in the details of the area. It was admitted to the U.P. State Sugar Corporation that in Khatauni of 1378/1380 Fasali, some land was shown unirrigated/Parti land.
40. It is settled proposition of law that once a land is held or occupied for the purposes connected with the agriculture etc., it shall be continued to be such land of agricultural nature. Even if a Bhumidhar builds a house in his agricultural holding or on farm, the land remains the land of agricultural nature, provided the said land was originally held for agricultural purposes, unless a declaration is obtained under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and if no declaration, in respect of a land is made under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms, the nature of the land would not ceased to be of agricultural land, even if there exists some constructions.
41. There is some force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners that all lands held or occupied and connected with agricultural purposes, whether brought in the consolidation or not, would constitute agricultural land within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and also within the meaning of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioner No. 1-Company has pointed out that Khata No. 135, which was directed to be recorded in the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation, has been renumbered as Khata No. 0035, the total land in this Khata is about 46 Acres, it has been recorded in the name of U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Similarly, in Village Dheer Maholia, the land of M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi is about 2.5 Acres. In addition to this, 4 Acres of land, which is recorded in the revenue entries (copy of Khatauni enclosed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition) belongs to the petitioner No. 1-Company.
42. As far as objections raised by Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, regarding present status of the petitioner No. 1-Company is concerned, this Court has noted that M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi is still a Registered Company as required under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act. In this regard, the statement made by the petitioner No. 2 in the affidavit dated 31.7.2008 has not been controverted. It has been categorically stated that M/s. Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Hardoi 'is still registered' with the Registrar of Companies. Its old Registration number was 1007 and after computerization, its number is U-15142, U.P., 1941, PLC 0001007. The Registered Office of the Company, which was earlier in Nanakganj Grunt, Hardoi has now been indicated as L.G. 28, Tej Kumar Plaza, Hazratganj, Lucknow. Thus, the petitioner No. 1Company appears to be still alive in the records of the Registrar of the Companies. As per Annexure RA-1 of the Rejoinder Affidavit, the Company and its present Directors have been recognised by the Registrar of the Companies. A copy of the notice issued under Section 51 of the Companies Act on 11.9.2007 proves this fact. The documents relating to the present Registration of the petitioner No. 1Company and its existence have been filed alongwith the said affidavit. It is well settled proposition of law that a Company, registered under the Companies Act, is a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. The property of the Company is not the personal property of any shareholder. A shareholder has merely an interest in the Company arising under its articles of association, measured by a sum of money for the purposes of liability and by a share in the profit. In view of these facts, objections raised by Sanjay Mehrotra and the U.P. State Sugar Corporation regarding status of the petitioner No. 1-Company and that of petitioner No. 2, are not sustainable.
43. Sanjay Mehrotra is neither a Director nor a shareholder of the Company. His principals, that is, Rajbahadur Seth and Smt. Rajshri Mehrotra were having merely 2% shares of the entire share. It is further held that Sanjay Mehrotra, respondent No. 7, is a stranger to the present proceedings, the subject matter of adjudication between the two companies. (Vide R.C. Cooper v. Union of India : AIR 1970 SC 564).
44. This Court has also noted and finds strength from various decisions, cited above, that the consolidation courts had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of title between the parties. In the present case, the Consolidation and Revenue Authorities, in sheer disregard of the proposition of law, had ex parte changed the title of the agricultural land in question, overlooking that the nature of the agricultural land, that is, the land held or occupied for the purposes of agricultural operations and grove land could not be changed according to their wishes.
45. The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Consolidation Officer of Hardoi, in fact, supports the case of the petitioners, that the land in dispute was being used for agricultural purposes. Consolidation proceedings are not carried out in a Sugar Mill, in its premises, connected open land or appurtenant land used for sugar cane crushing process, sugar manufacturing and storing sugar and other bye-products.
46. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, as mentioned above, supports the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Scheduled Undertaking would not include the agricultural land and grove land etc. In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2004) 4 SCC 98 (Supra), where the registered office of an acquired Company was taken over by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation in the garb of provisions of the Acquisition Act of 1971, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the premises in dispute being used as a residence of a Director or Guest House could not have been acquired. The other decisions, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, also support the submissions put-forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
47. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the District Deputy Director of Consolidation are unjust, illegal and improper. These findings are not based on documentary and oral evidence. Thus, the findings appear to be perverse as the Consolidation courts had ignored the material fact itself that the disputed land was being used for agricultural purposes. While expunging the longstanding, unchallenged and uncontroverted revenue entries, opportunity of hearing was also not afforded to the petitioners. On this count also, the impugned orders suffer from illegality. This Court also holds that the agricultural land, grove land, Temple and Educational Institutions were not covered in the Factory area or the area of operations of the Sugar Mill and as such these areas were not covered by the Acquisition Act of 1971. The Consolidation Authorities ought not to have arbitrarily, without hearing version of the other side, changed the title of the land in dispute, that is, the agricultural land. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 2.9.1992, 24.1.1997 and 6.12.2006, Annexures-5, 8 and 9 to the writ petition. The Collector, Hardoi and the concerned Revenue and Consolidation Authorities are directed to expunge/remove the name of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation from the revenue and consolidation records, in respect of the land in dispute as a result of which the name of the petitioner No. 1-Company shall be recorded in respect of the agricultural land, grove land, Temple, Primary School and the Intermediate College available on the said land. The Respondents are further directed to restore the name of the petitioner No. 1Company in the revenue and consolidation records in place of U.P. State Sugar Corporation, in respect of the land in dispute and also handover the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioners, as referred to in the judgments and orders of the Consolidation Authorities, to the petitioner No. 1-Company within a month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The encroachments, if any, on the petitioners' aforesaid land shall be removed by the concerned District Authorities.
48. No order as to costs.