Read Time: 04 minutes
The Bombay High Court had recently dismissed the writ filed by the company while noting that the project was of national importance and public interest and that there was no interference required as there was no illegality in compensation provided.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Godrej & Boyce against the order of the State Government to acquire land and granting compensation for the Mumbai Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Project.
"What we will say is, your claim of enhancement should be resolved in six months... We cannot entertain this petition now.. This a national importance project..", said CJI Chandrachud while refusing to entertain the plea.
Court was further of the view that against determination of compensation, the company had other remedies to pursue and there was no reason for it to intervene when much water had flown.
Earlier this month, a division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice RD Dhanuka and Justuce MM Sathaye had 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 had said that the project is of public importance and no interference is required.
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