Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BALARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Decided
22 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 156 · 1996 INSC 1377

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 156, margin F

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, namely, Respondent No. 4 on whose behalf acquisition is sought to be made in their counter-affidavit, has admitted thus :

pp. 156–157, margin F

"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

p. 157, margin A

petitioner's factory."

p. 157, margin B

In view of this admission and undertaking given by the 4th respondent to provide for necessary ingress and egress to the appellant's faciory, 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.

p. 157, margin B

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 157, margin D