The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with orders passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Authority in a dispute involving Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited. The Court upheld decisions allowing the State authorities to file their written statement after delay and permitting the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) to amend its reply.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from acquisition of around 10 acres of land in Vikhroli, Mumbai, owned by the petitioner company. The land was acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
After the acquisition was upheld earlier, the company pursued enhancement of compensation and initiated reference proceedings before the LARR Authority. Over time, the compensation claim was significantly increased through amendments-from about ₹572 crore to nearly ₹1972 crore.
During these proceedings, the State authorities failed to appear for several hearings, leading to an ex-parte order against them. Later, they sought to set aside that order and place their written statement on record, which was later allowed by the Authority.
Separately, NHSRCL requested permission to amend its written statement to raise the issue of limitation-whether the reference was filed within the prescribed time.
The Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat examined both challenges together.
On the State’s delay, the Court noted that the LARR Authority had considered the circumstances in detail before allowing the applications. It observed that the petitioner itself had amended its claim multiple times, substantially increasing the compensation amount.
“The Authority found it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to allow the applications rather than shut out the defence,” the bench recorded.
The Court accepted the explanation offered by the State-that institutional mechanisms for representation before the newly constituted LARR Authority were still evolving, causing delays in filing replies.
Importantly, the bench held that no real prejudice was caused to the petitioner by allowing the written statement to be taken on record.
On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the LARR Authority lacked jurisdiction to consider limitation. It clarified that the Authority, which now performs the role earlier exercised by civil courts in such references, can examine whether a claim is within time.
“It would be illogical to hold that the Authority can decide compensation on merits but cannot examine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the reference,” the Court observed.
The judges emphasized that raising a plea of limitation does not mean it is accepted; the petitioner remains free to contest it during the proceedings.
Read also:- Supreme Court Acquits 16 Accused in Assam Murder Case, Flags Serious Lapses in Police Investigation
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the petitioner company, finding no error in the LARR Authority’s approach.
It upheld:
- The order setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and accepting the State’s written statement.
- The order allowing NHSRCL to amend its reply to include the plea of limitation.
The Court vacated interim reliefs and directed the LARR Authority at Nashik to proceed with the reference case and decide it expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Case Details
Case Title: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs Collector, Mumbai Suburban District & Ors.
Case Numbers: Writ Petition No. 12027 of 2025 & Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2026
Judges: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Decision Date: April 24, 2026
