Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by which certain lands were acquired for a public purpose. The appellant, Balarpur Industries Ltd., challenged the acquisition primarily on the ground that it blocked ingress and egress to its factory. The matter reached the Supreme Court by special leave against an order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated April 15, 1996 in Special Civil Application No.8179 of 1995. The High Court order itself is not described in detail, but the challenge before the Supreme Court was to the validity of the land acquisition notification and its impact on access. Before the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the lands acquired were needed for a public purpose, but the acquisition had the effect of blocking ingress and egress to the appellant's factory. The court had earlier issued notice to the respondents by order dated September 2, 1996, based on an admission made by the respondent in a counter-affidavit filed in the High Court. In response, the acquiring authority admitted the factual position in its counter-affidavit. More importantly, the beneficiary respondent, Respondent No.4, on whose behalf the acquisition was sought, filed a counter-affidavit in which it stated that it would close the existing road passing through the acquired land only after constructing a new road on the boundary of the existing road for necessary ingress and egress to the petitioner's factory. This undertaking effectively addressed the appellant's grievance by ensuring that the existing access would not be closed until an alternative road was built. The Supreme Court considered this admission and undertaking and held that there was no need to interfere with the acquisition, provided the undertaking was honoured. The court also addressed an additional practical concern raised by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, that telephone lines and electrical energy lines serving the appellant's factory would also need to be shifted from the existing road to the new road. The court directed that the shifting of these utility lines should also be done as part of the undertaking given by the respondent. The ratio of the decision is that when a land acquisition for a public purpose is challenged on the ground that it blocks ingress and egress, and the beneficiary gives a clear undertaking to construct a new road and shift utilities before closing the existing access, the acquisition need not be interfered with, subject to that undertaking. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Ingress and Egress - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1) - The appellant challenged the notification under Section 4(1) on the ground that acquisition blocked ingress and egress to its factory; the beneficiary respondent assured in its counter-affidavit that it would close the existing road only after constructing a new road on the boundary for necessary ingress and egress; the court held that in view of the admission and undertaking there was no need to interfere with the acquisition, subject to the undertaking; also directed shifting of telephone lines and electrical lines as part of the undertaking. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether acquisition of land under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be interfered with on the ground of blocking ingress and egress to the appellant's factory, when the beneficiary gave an undertaking to provide alternative access.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of. The Supreme Court held that in view of the admission and undertaking given by the 4th respondent to provide necessary ingress and egress, there was no need to interfere with the acquisition; directed that shifting of telephone lines and electrical energy lines etc. to the appellant's factory be done as part of the undertaking; no costs.
Law Points
- When beneficiary undertakes to construct new road and shift utilities before closing existing access
- acquisition for public purpose upheld
- Section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
