C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader for the remaining respondents. The judgment under challenge is one rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the repossession and allotment of land to 4th respondent on account of appellants'' failure to utilize the land for industrial purposes and on account of chronic default in payment of installments. The land allotted to appellants is 18.078 cents on outright sale basis and balance 20 cents on deferred payment basis. Admittedly, the land resumed is 20 cents in respect of which the appellants could not make payments even after allotment made nearly 20 years back.
2. After hearing both sides we feel the appellants are entitled to a limited relief i.e. a direction to the Industries Department to ensure that the road access and gate to the 18.078 cents of land is retained for the appellants for utilizing the land for industrial purposes. If in the course of repossession and reallotment, any hindrance is caused to the road access to the appellants'' property, there will be direction to the respondents to ensure that road access is provided to the appellants'' property. Similarly, if land repossessed and allotted is such as to reduce the land sold to the appellants, then the difference should be restored to the appellants, i.e. 18.078 cents of land, which will include road access and entrance. By remeasuring and earmarking the boundaries, the Industries Department can achieve the same, and there shall be direction to them to do it in the presence of the parties.
This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
