Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
BALARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. NOVEMBER 22, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
S. 4( 1}-Acquisition of land--<:hallenged on the ground that as a result of acquisition ingress and egress to the factory would be blocked-Held, on the undertaking given that ingress and egress to the factory would not be stopped, there is no need to inteifere with the acquisition.
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15522 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.96 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA. No. 8179 of 1995. Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant.
Y. Adhyaru, Ms. Neetu Singh and Ms. H. Wahl for the Respondent Nos. 1-3. A.K. Gupta for the Respondent No. 4. The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, dated April 15, 1996 made in Special Civil Application No. 8179 of 1995. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring the land on the ground that the lands were needed for public purpose and it blocked ingress and egress to their factory. In view of the admission made by the respondent in the counteraffidavit filed in the High Court, notice was issued to the respondents as indicated in our order dated 2.9.1996. In furtherance thereof, the acquiring authority in the counter- affidavit has admitted the same. The beneficiary,
BALARPURINDS. LID. v. STATE namely, Respondent No. 4 on whose behalf acquisition is sought to be made in their counter-affidavit, has admitted thus : "This respondent submits that it stands by its said commitment and assures this Hon'ble Court that it would close the existing road passing through the acquired land only after it has constructed a new road on the boundary of the acquired land and connected to the existing road for necessary ingress and egress to the petitioner's factory."
In view of this admission and undertaking given by the 4th respondent to provide for necessary ingress and egress to the appellant's faciory, C there is no need to interfere with the acquisition as it is subject to the above undertaking. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that telephone lines and electrical energy lines etc. to the appellant's factory also are required to be shifted from the existing road to the new road. We direct that this should also be done as part of the undertaking given by the respondent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P.
Appeal disposed of.