The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Godrej & Boyce challenging the acquisition of its land for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train Project.
A Division bench led by Justices RD Dhanuka and MM Sathaye stated that the project is of national importance and no illegality has been discovered in the land acquisition proceedings.
The order stated, “The petitioner has not made a compelling case for us to exercise our powers. The paramount collective interest would prevail over private interest. This would be the first project of its kind. The petition is dismissed.”
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Godrej & Boyce, sought status quo so that the company could file an appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the High Court refused to grant the same.
The Godrej and Boyce petition challenged a compensation award made by the Deputy Collector on September 15, 2022 for acquiring the company’s land after awarding compensation of 264 crores.
The company’s application claimed that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2019 had lapsed in 2020, rendering the award passed by the officer void ab initio.
The petition also challenged the amendment to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, which exempted the bullet train project from expert social impact assessment carried out by experts.
Seervai claimed that there were “multiple and patent illegalities” in the acquisition. He had requested a stay of proceedings, arguing that national interest cannot be used to deny urgent interim relief.
Former Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, on behalf of the State acquisition authority, had told the Bombay High Court that the project’s land acquisition was complete except for the land owned by Godrej & Boyce.
He had also argued that there had been no violation of Godrej & Boyce’s fundamental rights, and thus the writ petition challenging the acquisition of land should be dismissed. He had informed the Court of a suit filed by the State claiming title to the land, which Godrej & Boyce disputed.
Despite the suit, the State offered to pay compensation, he said, adding that if the title to the land is determined in the State’s favour, the State will seek a refund of the compensation paid.
ASG Anil Singh argued that land acquisition in Gujarat was already complete and work had begun, whereas in Maharashtra, they had only completed 97% of land acquisition.
He had stated that lands owned by companies such as Godrej and Boyce were pending for acquisition.
He also claimed that Godrej’s petition was only delaying a project of public and national importance, and that this delay could lead to an increase in the project’s costs.
If compensation was a concern, Singh stated that higher compensation could be considered and then granted, but the project should not suffer any further.
