Read Time: 04 minutes
The high court dismissed the writ petition while noting that the project was of public importance and the first of its kind.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice RD Dhanuka and Justuce MM Sathaye on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by Godrej & Boyce challenging the land acquisition by the government for construction of the Mumbai Ahmedabad Bullet Train Project.
The high court while dismissing the petition said that the project is of public importance and no interference is required.
"The project is of national importance and public interest. There is no interference required and there is no illegality in compensation provided," court stated.
The high court also said that no case was made out by the petitioner.
"Petitioner has not made out the case for us to exercise our powers. It is the paramount collective interest that would prevail over private interest. The petition is dismissed," court ordered.
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for the company sought a stay on the order for filling an appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the same was not allowed by the high court.
Godrej & Boyce had filed a petition against the order of the State Government to acquire land and granting compensation for the Mumbai Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Project.
In the writ petition filed by Godrej & Boyce, it was stated that the proceedings for land acquisition had lapsed in 2020 itself and therefore the award passed was void ab initio. The company had prayed before the High Court to direct the government to not execute the award passed earlier.
The company had filed this petition in 2019 challenging the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. The company was issued notice by the authorities for a hearing of the persons interested in the land but no order was passed and the Collector of Mumbai Suburban District extended the time period of the proceedings by 12 months.
After 16 months, the acquisition officer had passed an order on 15 September 2022.
The company claimed that the order should be set aside on the ground that the proceedings had lapsed, and the order passed was void ab initio.
Case Title: Godrej & Boyce vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Please Login or Register
