Ahmedabad-Mumbai bullet train project of national importance: HC dismisses Godrej & Boyce plea against land acquisition

The company had challenged proceedings by the state government whereby a final award of Rs 264 crore was granted on September 15–2022 for acquiring 39,252 sq m (9.69 acres) of its land, saying it was far less than the initial amount of Rs 572 crore the government had offered.

The plea had also challenged the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act-2013, which exempted the bullet train project from the social impact assessment to be carried out by experts.

Senior advocate for the company Navroz Seervai refuted allegations of causing unnecessary hurdles in the land acquisition process. The plea had also claimed that land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2019 had lapsed in 2020; therefore, the award passed was void ab initio (unlawful since the beginning).

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, representing the National High-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd (NHSRCL), which is executing the bullet train project, told the court that the land that was still in Godrej’s possession might be handed over to NHSRCL to carry out measurements works for the project.

The High Court was told that as per land acquisition laws, possession of land was taken within three months of passing a compensation award, and in the case of Godrej, three months had already passed. The state government had said that it did not take possession of the land as the matter was sub-judice.

In his submissions as Advocate General Maharashtra and later as special counsel in the case, Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, said the government had agreed to compensate the company despite the pending land dispute over its property in Mumbai, which the state has sought to acquire for the Ahmedabad-Mumbai bullet train project. He had said that the state had deposited the compensation amount and the company did not have entitlement over the said property.

“At such a stage of the project, this Court cannot exercise the discretion to interfere with the acquisition of the writ property, which is for small portion of the land, as compared with 97% of the land already having been acquired by the respondents, and on the said land various activities already having been carried out substantially,” the bench noted.

It added that the government has already spent “a huge amount on completing the activities so far.” It went on to observe, “The bullet train project is funded by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and thus any interference in the acquisition of the writ property at this stage would be totally against public interest. In our view, any interference with the acquisition of the writ property at this stage would be also contrary to the principles of no interference with the public project under Specific Relief Act, 1963. There are no procedural irregularities in this matter on the part of the respondents. Even if there is any irregularity, no interference is warranted in view of the project being the infrastructural project of national importance, and being a project in public interest.”

The court referred to past HC judgement in Gorakhnath Shankar Nakhwa v BMC case which had held that “individual inconvenience alleged to have been canvassed by the petitioners cannot prevail over the national interest.”

The bench observed, “Public interest would prevail over private interest. Section 10A (amendment) was introduced in the said Fair Compensation Act in 2013, and the petitioner had challenged constitutional validity in October, 2022. In view of delay/laches attributable on the part of the petitioner also, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary power to entertain the challenge to the powers of the State Government, to insert and to add in Section 10A of the Fair Compensation Act.”

The Court observed that it could not find any “illegality” in the award or in the decision taken by the appropriate authority to grant extension to make an award. “The petitioner has not made out a case for exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.”