Land acquisition substitution: exclusion of adjoining acreage justified where alternative plot was offered for acquisition.

The dispute concerned whether 2.18 acres in Survey Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 could be excluded from acquisition and whether the acquisition should instead proceed against Plot No. 41/4. The record indicated that the land was needed for convenient enjoyment of the corporation's residence and staff quarters, and that there had been prior administrative consultation for substitution of the acquisition site. On that basis, the request to delete the adjoining 2.18 acres was treated as justified, and the State was directed to proceed against Plot No. 41/4 instead.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to have 2.18 acres of land in Survey Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 excluded from acquisition and whether the acquisition proposal should instead be shifted to the offered land in Plot No. 41/4.

Analysis: The land in question was found to be necessary for convenient enjoyment of the appellant corporation's residence and staff quarters. The record showed prior administrative consultation, a proposal to acquire Plot No. 41/4 in exchange, and a genuine request for exclusion of the 2.18 acres adjoining the General Manager's residence. In the circumstances, the requested deletion from acquisition was treated as justified and consistent with the practical requirements of both public corporations.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to exclusion of 2.18 acres from acquisition, with the State Government directed to proceed instead against Plot No. 41/4.

---