STATE OF U.P.versusM/S LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

                     [2013] 9 S.C.R. 345


                     STATE OF U.P.                                  A
                            v.
   M/S LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD. AND ORS.
          (Civil Appeal No. 8085 of 2013 etc).
                   SEPTEMBER 12, 2013.
                                                                    B
  [T.S. THAKUR AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

   UTTAR PRADESH SUGAR                      UNDERTAKINGS
(ACQUISITION) ACT, 1971:
                                                                    c
      s.2(h)(vi) read with s.3 - 'Scheduled undertaking' -
Vesting of, in Sugar Corporation - Land of $Ugar factory
shown in revenue records as "Parti Kadim Tilla" (land not
cultivated for a long time and in the form of hillock), held by
consolidation authorities as vested in the Corporation - High       o
Court directing to restore the name of sugar Company in
revenue records - Held: All the three statutory authorities
concurrently held that there was no evidence on record to
show that the subject land was ever held or occupied by the
respondent-Company for agricultural purposes or that any            E
agricultural activity was ever carried out on the same -- These
concurrent findings of fact could not have been reversed by
the High Court in its writ jurisdiction -- Therefore, the subject
land has been rightly taken as vested in the Corporation.

     CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA 1950:                                    F

      Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of -
High Court reversing the concurrent findings of all the three
consolidation authorities - Held: Whether or not the
respondent-company held or occupied the subject land for            G
cultivation was essentially a question of fact, answered against
the company -- High Court 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
                              345                                   H
    346      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A land was held or occupied for cultivation and substitute its own
    finding for that of the authorities -- High Court, thus, committed
    an error - Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition)
    Act, 1971.

B      The sugar-factory belonging to the respondent-
  company stood vested in the appellant-U.P. Sugar
  Corporation w.e.f. 28.10.1984, in terms of s.3 of the U.P.
  Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. The
  Consolidation Officer by an order dated 2.9.1992 directed
  that the subject land belonging to sugar-factory be
C recorded in the name of the appellant-Corporation in the
  revenue records. The appeal of the respondent was
  dismissed by the S9ttlement Officer, Consolidation and
  its revision was dismissed by the District Consolidation
  Director/Collector. However, the High Court in writ
D petition reversed the orders of the consolidation
  authorities and directed to delete the name of the
  appellant-Corporation and restore that of the respondent-
  sugar-Company in the revenue records.

E         Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Section 2(h)(vi) of the U.P. Sugar
  Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 lays down that all
  lands, other than those held or occupied for purposes of
F cultivation and grovelands, are treated as being part of
  the 'scheduled undertaking' which would upon
  acquisition vest in the appellant-Corporation, provided
  such lands and buildings are "held or occupied for
  purposes of the sugar factory". The test is whether the
  asset or any interest therein is held or occupied 'for
G purpose of a sugar factory'. If the answer is in the
  affirmative, the same is treated to be a part of the
  scheduled undertaking that would vest in the appellant-
  Corporation upon acquisition. [para 14] [354-G-H; 355-C]

H         1.2. It is evident not only from a plain reading of s:2(h)
  STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS            347
                      LTD.
but also the interpretation placed upon the same by this• A
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 the Corporation. [para 16] B
[356-B]
     1.3. In the case at hand, it was not the case of the
respondent-company that the land in question was
groveland nor was it the case of the company that the
land even though not meant for cultivation was held for         C
a purpose other than the sugar factory. All the three
statutory authorities concurrently held that there was no
evidence on record to show that the subject land was
ever held or occupied by the respondent-company for
agricultural purposes or that any agricultural activity was     D
ever carried out on the same. These concurrent findings
of fact could not have been reversed by the High Court
in its writ jurisdiction. Wh.ether or not the respondent-
company held or occupied the subject land for cultivation
was essentially a question of fact, which had been              E
answered by statutory authorities against the company.
The High Court 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               F
substitute its own finding for that of the authorities. In as
much as the High Court did so, it committed an error. 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             G
cultivated for a long time and is in the form of a hillock.
[para 17-18] [356-C-E; 357-G-H; 358-A-B]
    1.4. Besides, the land in question was excluded from
the application of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 only because it was treated as               H
    348      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 9 S.C.R.


A industrially attached to the sugar factory. Thus, it could
  not be treated to be held or occupied for cultivation, for
  the purposes of U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition)
  Act, 1971. Therefore, the subject land has been rightly
  taken as vested in the Corporation. [para 19-20] "[358-C-
B D, E-F, G-H]
         1.5. Further, the land in question is situate in the
    immediate vicinity of the sugar factory. 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
C   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.
    [para 20] [358-H; 359-A-B]

D        U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Burwal Sugar Mills Co.
    Ltd. and Ors. 2004 (2 ) SCR 605       = (2004) 4 SCC 98
    distinguished.

        1.6. In the circumstance, the order passed by the
E   High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. [para
    21]
                        Case Law Reference:
          2004 (2) SCR 605      distinguished        para 10
F       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    8085 of 2013.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2010 of the High
  Gout of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow in WP No.
G 187 of 2007.
                              WITH

    Civil Appeal No. 8086 of 2013.

H         Shobha Dixit, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, R.K.S.
  STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS              349
             LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

Yadav, Viplav Sharma, Nilanjana Banerjee, Vishnu Sharma for      A
the Appellant.

    H. Ahmadi, Arjun Hharkauli, Rohan Sharma for the
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   B

    T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These appeals arise out of a Judgment and Order dated
30th April, 2010 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the. High        c
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby writ petition No.187
of 2007 filed by the respondent-company has been allowed with
a direction to respondents 4 to 6 to delete the name of the
appellant-U.P. State Sugar Corporation from the relevant
revenue records and restore that of the respondent-Company.
                                                                  0
That direction followed a finding recorded by the High Court that
the land in dispute being agricultural land had not vested in the
appellant-Corporation under the provisions of The U.P. Sugar
Undertakings. (Acquisition) Act, 1971. The mandamus issued
by the High Court includes a further direction for delivery of E
possession of the disputed parcel of land to the respondent-
company within a period of one month from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of the impugned judgment and
order.

     3. The respondent-Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Limited F
established a sugar factory in District Hardoi of the State of
Uttar Pradesh as early as in the year 1933. Several such sugar
mills having gone sick in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State
legislature enacted what is known as Uttar Pradesh Sugar
Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. Twelve private sugar G
manufacturing units in the State of Uttar Pradesh were acquired
by the State Government under the said Act and vested in the
appellant-Corporation so as to revive such sick mills and,
thereby, protect the interest of cane growers in the State.
Section 3 of the Act, inter alia, provided that "on the appointed H
    350     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   day, every scheduled undertaking shall, by virtue of this Act,
    stand and be deemed to have stood transferred and vested
    in the Corporation free from any debt, mortgage charge or
    other encumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation
    (excepting any, lien or other obligation in respect of any
B   advance on the security of any sugar stock or other stock in
    trade) attaching to the undertaking." The expression "scheduled
    undertaking" was defined in Section 2(h) of the Act, inter alia,
    to mean an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or
    production of sugar by means of vacuum pars and with the aid
c   of mechanical power in a factory specified in any of the
    Schedules to the Act and comprising plants, machinery and
    other equipments and assets enumerated thereunder.

         4. The respondent-sugar factory, it is common ground,
    figured at ltem-7 of the Second Schedule to the Act and,
D   therefore, stood vested in the appellant-Corporation with effect
    from 28th October, 1984, the date appointed for vesting of
    undertakings specified in the said schedule in terms of
    notification dated 27th October, 1984. Possession of the
    respondent-Sugar Mill was taken over by District Magistrate,
E   Hardoi on 28th October, 1984 and handed over to the
    appellant-Corporation.

       5. Consolidation proceedings appear to have started in
  Village Nanakganj Grunt, Pargana Gopamau, Tehsil and
F District Hardoi sometime in June, 1986 and a mutation in
  respect of land held by the respondent-Company and situated
  at Dheer Maholia passed by the SDO, Sadar, Hardoi on 14th
  February, 1987. A similar order of mutation was passed for
  another parcel of land situated at Nagheta by the SDO, Sadar,
G Hardoi on 19th February, 1987. In regard to the third parcel of
  land situate in village Nanakganj Trust, the appellant-
  Corporation acting through its General Manager addressed a
  letter dated 26th August, 1992 to the Consolidation Officer,
  Hardoi requesting him to record the name of the appellant-
H Corporation in place of the respondent-Company. The letter
 STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS                351
            LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
pointed out that the said parcel of land had been acquired by      A
the State Government and stood vested in the appellant-
Corporation with effect from 28th October 1984 under the
provisions of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act,
1971 read with the Amendment Act of 1985.
                                                                B
     6. The Consolidation Officer registered the request as
Case No.9760 and initiated proceedings in which he issued
notices to the respondent-Mis Lakshmi Sugar Mills at its
registered office. The respondent-Company remained
unrepresented even after the notice was pasted in public places C
and announcement by beat of drum regarding the proceedings.
The Consolidation Officer eventually passed an order on 2nd
September,: 1992 directing that land measuring 122.4.0 Bighas
in Khata No.132 in CH 23, shall be shown in the ownership of
the appellant-Corporation in place of the respondent-company.
                                                                   D
     7. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer
the respondent-company appealed to the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation, Harddi who dismissed the same by his Order
dated 24th January, 1997. The respondent-Company then
preferred a revision before the District Consolidation Director/   E
Collector, Hardoi who concurred with the view taken by the
officers below and dismissed the Revision Petition on 6th
December, 2006.

      8. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Consolidation
authorities, the respondent-Company preferred Writ Petition F
No.187 (Consolidation) of 2007 before the Lucknow Bench of
the High Court of Allahabad. By its order dated 30th April, 2010
impugned in these appeals, the High Court has allowed Writ
Petition No.187 (Consolidation) of 2007 and quashed the
orders passed by the Consolidation authorities with the G
directions to which we have made a reference in the beginning
of this judgment.

     9. On behalf of th~ appellant-Corporation, it was
strenuously argued that the High Court had fallen in error, in     H
    352      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013} 9 S.C.R.


A   interfering with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer
    and those passed in appeal and revision filed against the same,
    in all of which it had been concurrently held that the land in
    dispute was a part of the undertaking as defined in Section 2(h)
    of the Act as the same was not held or occupied by the
B   company for agricultural purposes. The High Court had, it was
    contended, over-stepped its jurisdiction in reversing a finding
    of fact upon a reappraisal of the evidence as if it v.1as sitting in
    appeal over the orders passed by the authorities below. There
    was, according to the learned counsel, overwhelming evidence
c   to show that the land in question was at no point of time used
    for cultivation by the respondent-Company or held for any such
    purpose. The entire extent was, argued the learned counsel,
    used for industrial purpose and recorded as "Parti Kadim Tilla",
    which meant that it had not been cultivated for a very long time
    and hence was a part of the undertaking which upon acquisition
0
    vested in the appellant-Corporation.

        10. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing
  for the respondent-Company argued tnat under the scheme of
  the Acquisition Act, it was necessary to establish a nexus
E between the asset sought to be acquired/taken over and the
  undertaking. It was only if such a nexus is established that the
  property under the said Act would vest in the State or the
  Corporation and not otherwise. Reliance in support of that
  submission was placed upon the Aims and Objectives of the
F Act, and the decision of this Court in U.P. State Sugar
  Corporation v. Burwal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2_004) 4
  SCC 98. No such nexus, was according to the learned counsel,
  established in the case at hand, as according to the
  respondent-Company the land in question was not used or
G meant for the use of the undertaking, that was taken over by
  the State. The takeover of the undertaking did not, however,
  mean takeover of the company or such of its assets as had no
  nexus with the undertaking. The High Court had recorded a
  finding that no such nexus was established between the
H undertaking and the land in question which quite clearly proved
  STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS              353
             LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

the absence of an essential requirement for the land to vest in   A
the appellant-Corporation.

     11. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the
enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings
(Acquisition) Act, 1971 referred to problems which certain sugar 8
mills of the State had created for the cane-growers and
labourers and thereby adversely impacted the general economy
of the areas where such mills were situate. The legislation,
therefore, provided for acquisition of such mills, payment of
compensation for the same and for the replacement of the dues C
of cane-growers, labourers as also of the Government out of the
amount of compensation so payable. The Preamble of the Act
states as follows:

    "An Act to provide, in the interest of the general public,
    for the acquisition and transfer of certain sugar D
    undertakings, and for matters connected therewith or
    incidental thereto."

    12. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of the schedule
undertaking and i~ in the following terms:                        E

    ·section 3: Vesting: On the appointed day, every
    schedule undertaking shall, by virtue of this Act, stand
    and be deemed to have stood transfeffed to and vest and
    be deemed to have vested in the Corporation free from
    any debt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrance or lien F
    trust or similar obligation (excepting any lien or other
    obligation in respect of any advance on the security of any
    sugar stock or other stock-in-trade) attaching to the
    undertaking.
                                                                 G
          Provided that any such debt, mortgage, charge or
    other encumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation shall
    attach to the compensation referred to in Section 7, in
    accordance with the provisions of that section, in
    substitution for the undertaking:                            H
                                                               I
    354      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A               Provided further that a debt, mortgage, charge or
          other encumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation
          created after the scheduled undertaking or any property
          or asset comprised therein had been attached or a
          receiver appointed over it, in any proceedings for
B
          realisation of any tax or cess or other dues recoverable
          as arrears of revenue shall be void as against all claims
          for dues recoverable as arrears of revenue."

         13. We are in the present appeal concerned only with
    Section 2(h) (vi) of the Act which may be reproduced for ready
C   reference:

          "2(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
0         power in factory specified [in any of the schedules of this
          Act], and comprises -

          xxx   xxx

          (vi) all lands (other than lands held or occupied for
E         purposes of cultivation and grove/ands) and buildings
          held or occupied for purposes of that factory (including
          buildings pertaining to any of the properties and assets
          hereinbefore specified, and guest houses and residences
          of directors, managerial personnel, staff and workmen or
F         of any other person as lessee or licensee, and any store
          houses, molasses, tanks, roads, bridges, drains culverts,
          tubewells, water storage or distribution system and other
          civil engineering works) including any leasehold interest
          therein"
G
        14. A plain reading of the above would show that all lands
    other than those held or occupied for p'urposes of cultivation
    and grovelands are treated as being part of the 'scheduled
    undertaking' which would upon aequisition vest in the appellant-
    Corporation, provided such lands and buildings are "held or
H   occupied for purposes of the sugar factory". What is important
  STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS                   355
             LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.)
is that buildings pertaining to any of the property and assets A
specified in Section 2(h) (i) to (xii) including guest houses and
residences of directors, managerial personnel, staff and
workmen or of any other person as lessee or licensee including
any store houses, molasses, tank, roads, bridges, drains,
culverts, tubewells, water ~torage or distribution system and B
other civil engineering works including lease hold interesttherein
are also treated as part of the scheduled undertaking. The test,
therefore, is whether the asset or any interest therein is held or
occupied 'for purpose of a sugar factory'. If the answer is in the
affirmative, the same is treated to be a part of the scheduled c
undertaking that would vest in the appellant- Corporation upon
acquisition.                                   ,

     15. In Burwal Sugar Mills case (supra) on which Mr.
Ahmadi placed reliance the question that fell for consideration
before this Court was whether the registered office of the             D
company that had set up the sugar factory comprised the
undertaking and could, therefore, be taken over by the State or
the Corporation. A two-Judge Bench of this Court held that .the
intention of the legislature clearly was to take over only such land
and buildings as are connected with or were in use for purposes        E
of factory. The registered office of the company, observed this
Court, was located at House No.54/14, Canal Range, Kanpur,
and in the absence of any material to show that the premises
in question was being used or occupied for the storage of sugar
or as a guest house or for residence of any director of the            F
factory as was alleged on behalf of the Corporation, there was
no question of treating the building used as registered office of
the Company as a part of the undertaking. This Court noticed
the difference between a company owning the undertaking and
the sugar undertaking itself and held that while a company is a        G
much wider entity, the undertaking is only one of the assets of
the company. The legislature deliberately did not touch the
company and provided for acquisition of only the undertaking.
This Court on that reasoning held that handing over of the
possession of the registered office of the company to the              H
    356      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   Corporation was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

         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
8
    and buildings if held or occupied for the purpose of the sugar
    factory would comprise the undertaking and would upon
    acquisition vest in the Corporation.

         17. In the case at hand the respondent-company had
C   claimed the lands in question to be exempted from acquisition
    and take over on the ground that the same were held and
    occupied for cultivation. It was not the case of the respondent-
    company that the lands in question were groveland nor was it
    the case of the Company that the land even though not meant
D   for cultivation was held for a purpose other than the sugar
    factory. Whether or not the respondent-company held or
    occupied the land in dispute for cultivation was, therefore, the
    only question that fell for consideration which question was
    essentially a question of fact answered against the company
E   by all the three statutory authorities concurrently on the basis
    of material available with them. The authorities held that 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
F   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.UP. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act
          1971 (as amended) and CH Form 21 (A) relating to the
G         disputed land has been filed wherein in Column 6 the
          name of Laxmi Sugar Mill is registered. In Column B 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
H         there is no evidence/ entry regarding any cultivation on
  STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS                   357
             LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    this land or the disputed land to be an agriculture land.          A
    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         B
    proceedings against notification before the Hon'ble 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             c
    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           D
    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          E
     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
     wa"ant any interference. The appeal does not have any
     force and is devoid of merit.•                                    F
                                             (emphasis supplied)

     18. The order passed by the District Consolidation
Director/ Collector, Hardoi also concurred with the view taken         G
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           H
    358     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 9 S.C.R.


A   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
s   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
C 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
D 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-
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H The fact situation is thus completely different from that.of Burwa/
  STATE OF U.P. v. LAKSHMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS                 359
             LTD. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
Sugar Mills case (supra) where the registered office of the          A
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       s
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 ov~r the C
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. These D
appeals, accordingly, succeed and are hereby allowed, the
judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and
Writ Petition No.187 of 2007 filed by the respondent-company
dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to
costs.                                                           E

R.P.                                           Appeals allowed.