Last Updated on February 27, 2023 by Administrator
Issue- The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal Godrej & Boyce filed against the Bombay High Court’s decision to uphold the acquisition of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.’s site in Vikhroli for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project.
Facts of the case- Godrej had contested the deputy collector’s award and compensation for seizing corporate land for the project to build the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train before the Bombay High Court. Nevertheless, the main problem in the petition was a notification issued under Section 10A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013 exempting the project from social impact assessment. It also questioned the constitutionality of a clause in Section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act that allows the State to extend the deadline for releasing the award.
Arguments- A lot of water has flowed, ownership has been seized, and work has started. At the end, you might request 572 crores or even more. Even 572 crores can’t bind you. Yet, because building has also begun, the debate is now irrelevant.
Reasoning- The court stated that although the petitioner was free to request increased compensation for the plot, his request for purchase of the site—for which the government had already taken possession and building had already begun—could not be considered.
Judgement- The appeal was thus denied. The jurisdictional court must make a decision on an augmentation of compensation within six weeks of the petitioner filing a reference, according to the court.
Provisions used in the case- Section 10A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act, Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd vs State of Maharashtra
Written By- Nikita Shankar
