A Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat pronounced the judgment yesterday (April 24, 2026), holding that the LARR Authority had rightly allowed the State authorities and the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) to file their written statements and raise the plea of limitation.

What was the dispute?

The Godrej property, admeasuring approximately 10 acres in Village Vikhroli, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban district, was acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The award was passed on 15 September 2022.

After unsuccessfully challenging the acquisition itself in the High Court and the Supreme Court, Godrej filed a reference application under Section 64 of the 2013 Act on 28 February 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim, which originally stood at around ₹572 crore based on District Level Committee rates, was later enhanced twice by the LARR Authority — first in February 2024 and again in May 2024 — taking the total demand to nearly ₹1,972 crore.

The reference proceedings were initially before the LARR Authority at Aurangabad and later transferred to Nashik.

The two orders Godrej challenged

Godrej had approached the High Court aggrieved by two orders passed by the LARR Authority:

1. Order dated 21 August 2025 (challenged in Writ Petition No. 12027 of 2025): The LARR Authority set aside its earlier ex-parte order (passed on 15 March 2024 against the Collector and Deputy Collector) and allowed the State authorities to file their written statement after condoning the delay.
2. Order dated 18 February 2026 (challenged in Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2026): The LARR Authority permitted NHSRCL (the project proponent and beneficiary of the acquisition) to amend its written statement to specifically raise the plea of limitation.

Senior Advocate Vineet Naik, appearing for Godrej, argued that both orders were passed after inordinate delay, caused prejudice to the company, and that the LARR Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the plea of limitation, which according to the petitioner could only be decided by the Collector.

What the High Court held

Justice Manish Pitale, authoring the judgment for the Bench, rejected both contentions.

The Court held that since Godrej itself was allowed to amend its reference application twice and substantially increase its claim, it was only fair that the acquiring body (State) and the beneficiary (NHSRCL) be permitted to file proper pleadings.

On the issue of sufficient cause shown by the State, the Bench accepted the explanation that the newly-constituted LARR Authority lacked a proper institutional mechanism and special counsel for representation in the initial period.

Crucially, the Court clarified the jurisdiction of the LARR Authority. The Bench explained that the LARR Authority, constituted under the 2013 Act, performs the functions of the Reference Court that earlier existed under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It has full jurisdiction to decide not only the quantum of compensation but also preliminary issues such as limitation. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Mohammed Hasnuddin vs. State of Maharashtra (1979), and earlier Bombay High Court rulings.

The judges observed that allowing the amendment to raise limitation does not mean the plea has been accepted — Godrej will get a full opportunity to contest it on merits.

The Bench also noted that the Collector’s order dated 25 September 2023 did not contain a clear finding that the reference was filed within time, leaving the issue open for adjudication by the LARR Authority.

What is the LARR Authority?

The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARR Authority) is a quasi-judicial body established under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It replaced the role of the District Judge (Reference Court) under the old 1894 Act. When a landowner is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, he can seek a reference to the LARR Authority, which hears evidence from all parties and decides the fair compensation, rehabilitation, and other related issues. Its orders are appealable to the High Court.

Final outcome

Both writ petitions were dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier was vacated. The High Court directed the LARR Authority at Nashik to decide the compensation reference expeditiously and preferably within six months.

The judgment paves the way for the LARR Authority to now hear the matter on merits, including the preliminary issue of limitation, which could potentially impact the maintainability of Godrej’s massive enhancement claim.

Also Read: Maharashtra Clears 4.79 Ha Forest Land in Palghar for Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train

The post Bombay HC Dismisses Godrej & Boyce Writs; LARR Authority to Decide ₹1,972 Cr Bullet Train Land Claim appeared first on Square Feat India.