A
BALARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 22, 1996
B
[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
C 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.
D
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.
E
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 :
F
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
G 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 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
H authority in the counter- affidavit has admitted the same. The beneficiary,
156
BALARPURINDS. LID. v. STATE
157
namely, Respondent No. 4 on whose behalf acquisition is sought to be A
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 B
the existing road for
necessary ingress and egress to the
petitioner's factory."
In view of this admission and undertaking given by the 4th respon-
dent 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 appel-
lant, 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.
D
Lex