Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project: SC dismisses plea by Godrej & Boyce

Clearing the way for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal by Godrej & Boyce and upheld the acquisition of the company-owned land in Vikhroli.

“Much water has flown. The possession has been taken over and the construction has started. The only issue remaining is your claim for enhancement of compensation,” the Bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said at the outset of the hearing.

The land in suburban Vikhroli was acquired by the Maharashtra government and the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) for the bullet train project.

Godrej and Boyce had challenged in the Bombay High Court the compensation award of ₹264 crore on September 15, 2022 by the Deputy Collector for acquiring the land. The company claimed it was offered Rs 572 crore as compensation initially.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, Justice P S Narasimha, and Justice J B Pardiwala said the project was of national importance and gave the company the liberty to file a claim for additional compensation. “We will give you the liberty to file a claim for additional compensation and we will set a deadline to determine the application. This is a national project we are talking about,” the CJI said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for NHSRCL, told the Bench that the dispute was over the amount of compensation and not land acquisition and that the delay was leading to an escalation in the cost of the project. The CJI reminded Senior Advocate Mukul Rohagi, appearing for the company, that “they (Godrej & Boyce) are a responsible company that the construction for the project has already started on the land”.

Bombay HC order

The Bombay High Court on February 9 dismissed the plea by Godrej & Boyce challenging the acquisition of its land in Vikhroli for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train Project and said “larger public interest would prevail over private interest”.

A division bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice M M Sathaye relied on a previous case of the Supreme Court and said there might be situations where conflict may arise between two fundamental rights.

(With inputs from PTI)