The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a major blow to the State government after refusing its urgent plea to lift the Bombay High Court’s stay on the land acquisition and construction of the proposed high-level Borim Bridge. The apex court direct ed the High Court to de cide the pending matter at the earliest. The State had approached the apex court challenging the High Court’s interim order stay ing further acquisition and construction-related pro ceedings for the proposed bridge and its approaches. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued for the State, seeking to have the stay lifted. During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked about the Coastal Regula tion Zone (CRZ) clearance, which the State could not produce, said Abhijit Prab hudesai, general secretary of the Federation of Rain bow Warriors. “The State’s prayer wasto quash the stay order, for which Adv Mukul Rohatgi argued hard. Upon which Court asked whether he had CRZ Clearance, which State could not produce.
Therefore, the prayer was refused,” Prabhudesai said. He said Rohatgi thereafter argued that the bridge was in the public interest, following which the Supreme Court indicated that it would ask the High Court to decide the matter at the earliest. The Supreme Court has directed the High Court to expedite the proceedings, with hearings to commence by October 13, 2026, or ear lier if possible. It has also directed all parties to com plete their pleadings before the scheduled hearing. The development does not lift the High Court’s stay or permit the State to proceed with acquisition or construc tion. The interim protection granted by the High Court therefore continues. The Bombay High Court had on July 30 stayed the operation and implemen tation of the Section 3-D declaration issued on Octo ber 11, 2024, under the Na tional Highways Act, 1956, for acquisition of land for the proposed bridge and its approaches. The High Court had re strained the authorities from taking physical pos session of the affected land, dispossessing the petition ers or commencing con struction and development on the notified land.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
It had, however, permitted the State to pursue CRZ, forest and other statutory clear ances, as well as certain preparatory activities, sub ject to its directions. Albert Pinheiro, presi dent of the Carbot, Mas casana & Bebdo Tenants Association, Loutolim, said the High Court had not de layed the matter and had instead stayed the acquisi tion process while direct ing the State to obtain CRZ clearance before proceed ing with work related to the new bridge. “The High Court at no point delayed the hearing in this matter. In fact the High Court has stayed the process and directed the state to obtain the CRZ clearance before proceed ing with any work related to the matter concerning the construction of the new high level Borim bridge,” Pinheiro said.
He said the State had contended that since the farmers had not appealed against the dismissal of their objections, the acqui sition was complete and ownership of the land had vested with the government. The farmers, however, maintained that their objection rejoinders had not been adjudicated and, as such, the question of filing an appeal did not arise, Pinheiro said. “The stay is confirmed as such the status continues,” he said. Prabhudesai described the development as “another battle won by the people” against the government, alleging that the State had used “unfair and illegal means, lies and abuse of powers” against the af fected communities. “Instead of destroying immaculate khaz ans maintained and cultivated by indige nous communities, the government must stop coal transportation from Mormugao Port and return our six rivers to the village communities,” he said.
The proposed bridge has been opposed by farmers from Loutolim and Borim and environmental groups, who have raised concerns over the impact of the alignment on agricultural and khazan lands and ques tioned the statutory clearances required for the project. The dispute is also pending before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), where environmental issues concerning the pro posed bridge remain under consideration. With the Supreme Court refusing imme diate relief to the State and directing an early hearing before the High Court, the next stage of the dispute will centre on the pending challenge to the land acquisition and the statutory clearances for the project.
