Supreme Court: Refused to entertain appeal against acquisition of Godrej & Boyce’s plot-Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project

The Supreme Court in the case Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd vs State of Maharashtra observed and has refused to entertain an appeal filed by Godrej & Boyce against the Bombay High Court order wherein the court refused to set aside the order of acquisition of Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd plot at Vikhroli for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project.
The bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing the present matter.
It has been noted by the court that while the petitioner had the liberty to claim enhancement of compensation for the plot, the petitioner plea for acquisition of the plot for which possession had already been taken by the government and construction which had already been started could not be entertained by the court.
In the present case, Bombay High Court had challenged the compensation and the award of Rs 264 crore by the deputy collector on 15.09.2022, for acquiring of 39,252 sqm (9.69 acre) of company land for the train project of Mumbai – Ahmedabad bullet. It has also been claimed by the company that the amount was fictional of fraction of the initial offering of Rs. 572 crores.
However, the core challenge in the plea was to a notification dated 20th August 2019 wherein the court exempted the project from social impact assessment issued under Section 10A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, the Rehabilitation and the Resettlement Act, 2013.
The constitutional validity of the provision in relation to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act which permits the State to grant extensions for issuance of the award was also being challenged before the court.
It has also been stated by the Bombay High Court that at such stage of the project, the court could not exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for interfering with the land acquisition of a small portion as the court also compared to the 97% of the land which is already being acquired and used substantially.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on similar grounds.