The Maharashtra government on Monday told the Bombay High Court that the land acquisition for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet train project is complete except for the land owned by Godrej & Boyce company. .The statement was made by Maharashtra Advocate General (AG) Ashutosh Kumbhakoni on a plea filed by the conglomerate company challenging an order of the State government awarding ₹264 crores in return for acquiring land belonging to the company."The land which is required for the project is from Bombay to Ahmedabad. The entire acquisition of land has been completed except for this patch (owned by Godrej)," the AG said..A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SG Dige after taking into account the submissions of the parties, decided to commence hearing the matter from December 5. .Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Godrej & Boyce, submitted that their plea was constitutional challenge to the amendment to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act which exempted the bullet train project from social impact assessment carried out by experts.He said that this question along with connected issues would take some time to be heard and decided.The State counsel then asked the Court to commence hearing at the earliest, as it had completed all formalities for acquisition and what remained now was taking possession of the land.He added that Godrej’s land was the only portion of land which was not in the State’s possession, all the other land had already been acquired. .The Court, after taking consent from all counsel, decided to commence hearing the matter from December 5.At this juncture, Seervai remarked that the date also marked the birthday of his father, the eminent jurist late HM Seervai. "December 5 is a good day to begin. It is my father's birthday," he said.The company had also filed an application in the writ petition asked for disclosures of the documents and records relied upon by the State for deciding on the plots of land to be acquired for the project. Seervai claimed that certain disclosures had been made before the Gujarat High Court which he will rely upon in the present petition. .The State had meanwhile opposed the application stating that the question of giving inspection was an indirect roving and fishing inquiry..The Court asked the parties to submit a short written note on their arguments in order to keep the issue short and within timeline.