Terming the Bullet Train project as a "dream project of this country” and of “national importance and being a project in public interest”, the Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected the petition filed by Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Maharashtra government and National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) in suburban Vikhroli.
A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Milind Sathaye observed: “In our view the bullet train project is an infrastructural project of national importance, a large numbers of public would be benefited and would have saved other benefits for betterment of this country.”
HC: “one-of-its-kind” project
The court also said that the project was “one-of-its-kind” and collective interest would ultimately prevail over private interest. “It is the paramount collective interest which would ultimately prevail. In the facts of this case, the private interest claimed by the petitioner does not prevail over the public interest which would subserve infrastructural project of public importance which is a dream project of this country and first of its kind,” said the bench.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Godrej challenging the September 2022 order of the State government awarding Rs 264 crores in return for acquiring its land for the project.
Of the total 508.17 kilometres of rail track between Mumbai and Ahmedabad, about 21 km is planned to be underground. One of the entry points to the underground tunnel falls on the land in Vikhroli (owned by Godrej).
Opposing the plea, the central and the state government contended that the company was delaying the project. It claimed that the State Government is in possession of all the other land and only the portion belonging to Godrej was not in its possession.
Fair Compensation Act
In its 153-page judgment, the court noted that the provisions of the Fair Compensation Act empowers the government to take the acquisition proceedings already initiated to its logical conclusion.the justices also accept Godrej's contention that the compensation was initially decided to be Rs572 crore whereas the final award passed was only for Rs264 crore.
“The compensation derived at the stage of private negotiation cannot be considered as final and binding since the said private negotiation had admittedly failed,” said the court.
Godrej had further contended that there have been irregularities in the procedure followed by the respondents in acquiring the writ property and also in awarding compensation. Additional solicitor general Anil Singh had contended that there is provision for appeal under the Fair Compensation Act and the company could exercise the same discretion.
Godrej and the government have been embroiled in a legal dispute over acquisition of the company-owned land in Vikhroli area of Mumbai for the bullet train project since 2019.
Special counsel Ashutosh Kumbhakoni and additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan, appearing for the state government had informed the court it has already deposited the compensation amount of Rs 264 crore awarded to the company in October last year.
Infrastructural Project of national importance
The court noted that even if there were irregularities, the same would “not vitiate the acquisition” of the property. “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,” averred the justices.
They further added that in case the court finds that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance there are ways of awarding compensation but aquashing of the acquisition process was the option. With some legal requirement the persons concerned shall be entitled to a particular amount of damages as a lumpsum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable, it said. “There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong but quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress,” added the court.
Senior counsel Navroz Seervai, appearing for Godrej, had urged the court to stay its order for a period of two weeks so that they could approach the Supreme Court in appeal.
The bench, however, refused to stay its order.
