Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BALARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both
sides.
This appeal 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 faction. In view of the
admission made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit
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, 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
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 factory, there is on 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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2