Telangana High Court
Anandapu Tirupathi vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 34438 of 2024
07th April, 2026
Between:
1. Anandapu Tirupathi S/o Bhoomaiah, and others
... Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Telangana, and others
... Respondents
ORDER:
The case of the petitioners, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that
in the first week of April 2021, they first became aware–purely by
chance–of a Section 3A notification published in Gazette No. 10162(E)
dated 02.03.2021, which had appeared in newspapers on 25.03.2021,
proposing acquisition of lands in approximately 10 villages in Chityal,
Mogullapally, and Tekumatla mandals, including portions of the
petitioners’ lands. The notification, however, contained only survey
number-wise extents and lacked landowner details, preventing them from
filing meaningful objections. Nevertheless, they submitted preliminary
objections within the stipulated time to the competent authority, expressing
their unwillingness to part with their lands and proposing, as an alternative,
the expansion of an existing highway rather than the construction of a new
one. These objections were reiterated during a discussion held on
31.05.2021, where they emphasized their dependence on the land for
2
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
livelihood. The petitioners assert that no formal notice of hearing, nor any
communication regarding the disposal of their objections, was ever
provided thereafter.
1.1 It is stated that in March 2023, they came to know of a public
notice under Section 3G displayed at the Gram Panchayat office, calling
upon affected landowners to submit documents for compensation claims. It
is stated that this was the first instance where farmer-wise extents of land
acquisition was disclosed, as they had not been previously informed of the
Section 3D declaration. Acting on this notice, some petitioners submitted
representations highlighting discrepancies in survey numbers and extents,
and pointing out the omission of structures and trees from the acquisition.
They also reiterated their earlier objection to the project alignment. It is
stated that the authoritiesorally assured them that these discrepancies
would be examined and rectified prior to passing the awards.
1.2. It is stated that, contrary to these assurances, during April and
May 2024 the petitioners were served individual award notices specifying
acquisition extents and compensation amounts. These notices allegedly
stated that there were no trees or structures on the lands. They assert that
no proper award enquiry was conducted and that they were denied copies
of the award proceedings at that stage. Although officials, including the
Tahsildar, subsequently visited the lands and conducted some form of
enquiry, no prior notices, reports, or revised findings were shared with the
petitioners. It was only in October 2024, through applications made under
the Right to Information Act, they obtained copies of the awards and
related proceedings, including modification orders dated 05.09.2024,
which altered both land extents and compensation amounts without issuing
fresh notices.
3
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
1.3. Upon reviewing these documents, the petitioners discovered
that multiple Section 3A notifications dated 10.03.2021 and 21.04.2022
had been issued for the same highway stretch, followed by corresponding
Section 3D declarations dated 22.02.2022 and 07.10.2022. They assert that
only one set of notifications was ever publicly displayed, and that the
second set was neither locally published nor communicated to them. They
further allege that only one public notice under Section 3G(3) dated
08.03.2023 was issued, and that no notice was given for the second set of
proceedings. According to the petitioners, the authorities failed to provide
landowner-specific details, did not conduct Gram Sabha consultations, and
issued notifications in newspapers with negligible circulation, thereby
defeating the statutory purpose of publication. It is alleged that no personal
hearing was conducted before issuance of the Section 3D notification dated
22.02.2022, nor were any orders disposing of their objections
communicated.
1.4. The petitioners contend that the awards themselves are legally
unsustainable, as they omit compensation for structures and trees and fail
to include Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits, which they
contend are mandatory under the 2013 Act as applied to acquisitions under
the National Highways Act. They assert that the term “compensation”
under Section 3G must be interpreted to include not only land value but
also structures and R&R entitlements, in accordance with Sections 16 to
18, 21 to 30, 23, and 31 of the 2013 Act and the Schedules thereto. It is
contended that possession cannot be taken under Section 3H unless such
comprehensive compensation is determined and paid.
1.5. It is contended that the respondent authorities have proceeded
on the basis that valid notifications and awards were issued and that
4
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
compensation has been determined in accordance with law. However, the
petitioners state that the respondents ignored the discrepancies, failed to
conduct proper enquiries, and subsequently issued modification orders to
correct errors without granting any opportunity of hearing to the affected
landowners, and these actions themselves demonstrate that the original
notifications and awards were erroneous and issued without due diligence.
1.6. The petitioners therefore contend that the entire acquisition
process is procedurally flawed due to lack of diligence–from the initial
notifications in March 2021 and April 2022, through the declarations in
February and October 2022, the public notice in March 2023, the awards in
January and March 2024, and the modifications in September 2024–is
procedurally flawed.The petitioners contend that they remain in possession
of the lands, with standing crops, and that any attempt to dispossess them
without lawful determination and payment of full compensation and R&R
benefits would cause irreparable harm.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No. 6 and 7,
essentially contending that the petitioners have failed to establish any
illegality in the acquisition process and that all actions undertaken for
acquisition of land for the NH-163G project–from Km. 63.779 to Km.
88.418 in Jayashankar Bhupalapally District–have been carried out
strictly in accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956 and the
applicable provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2.1. Tit is stated that National Highways Authority of India
(NHAI), constituted under the 1956 Act, initiated the greenfield highway
project to reduce travel distance, lower vehicle operating costs, and
5
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
promote economic development. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Bhupalpally, was duly appointed as the Competent Authority for Land
Acquisition (CALA), and a requisition was made for acquisition of lands
across 14 villages, including those of the petitioners. The process began
with the issuance of a Section 3A notification vide S.O. No. 1016(E) dated
02.03.2021, the substance of which was published in the newspapers
“Mana Telangana” (Telugu) and “The Hindu” (English) on 25.03.2021,
granting 21 days for objections. The respondents state that objections were
indeed received from certain landowners, primarily seeking alignment
changes and market-value compensation. In response, the CALA issued
notices under Section 3C(2), calling all interested persons to appear for a
personal hearing on 31.05.2021 at 11:00 AM. After considering these
objections, the CALA rejected them through office proceedings No.
J/69/2021/NH dated 05.08.2021, and communicated replies to the
objectors. This culminated in the issuance of a Section 3D declaration vide
S.O. No. 814(E) dated 22.02.2022.
2.2. It is contended that an additional Section 3A notification vide
S.O. No. 1869(E) dated 19.04.2022 was issued to cover certain missing
extents, and its substance was published in the same newspapers on
08.05.2022, again granting 21 days for objections. No objections were
received in response to this second notification, leading to a subsequent
Section 3D declaration vide S.O. No. 4780(E) dated 07.10.2022. It is
contended that upon publication of the Section 3D notifications, the land
vested absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances. It is
stated that environmental clearance for the project was granted on
05.07.2023 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
6
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
2.3. It is stated that a public notice under Section 3G(3) was issued
on 28.02.2023 in “Mana Telangana” and “The Hindu”, requiring interested
persons to appear before the Competent Authority on 18.03.2023 during
office hours to submit claims with documentary proof. Thereafter, awards
were passed by Respondent No. 3/CALA on 16.01.2024 and 09.03.2024
under proceedings No. J/69/2021-NH-163G/Nawabpet, following what
they describe as a due and lawful enquiry process. These awards
determined compensation in accordance with the NH Act, 1956 read with
Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, and the awarded amounts were duly
deposited with the competent authority. The respondents acknowledge that
in some cases, landowners did not attend the enjoyment survey or award
enquiry, or failed to produce title documents, leading the CALA to pass
awards based on available records. Subsequently, when certain land losers
submitted claims and documents or pointed out discrepancies in survey
numbers and extents, a field survey was conducted and a modification
award dated 05.09.2024 was issued to rectify such variations and correctly
demarcate ownership and extents in revised statements.
2.4. It is stated that objections were considered, and a personal
hearing was conducted on 31.05.2021 and the objections were rejected
vide orders issued on 05.08.2021. It is contended that notifications were
duly published in widely circulated newspapers in Telugu and English
languages, and that statutory requirements under Section 3A(3) were fully
complied with. It is stated that additional notifications were issued Section
3A notification dated 19.04.2022 only to include additional or missing
extents, and there is no duplication or overlap of extents of land. It is also
stated that opportunity under Section 3G, vide public notice dated
28.02.2023 was afforded and the hearing was scheduled on 18.03.2023.
7
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
2.5. It is contended that compensation was determined after due
enquiry and in accordance with law, and that any subsequent corrections
were legitimately addressed through the modification award dated
05.09.2024. It is contended that this modification was a corrective measure
undertaken after some landowners belatedly produced documents or raised
discrepancies, and that the inconsistencies arose due to the petitioners’
own failure to participate fully in the enquiry process or submit necessary
documentation in time.
2.6. It is contended that while compensation is to be determined
under Sections 26 to 30 of the Act with effect from 01.01.2015, the
provisions relating to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) under the
Second and Third Schedules apply only in cases of actual displacement or
dislocation, and the petitioners do not qualify as “displaced families” under
Section 3(k), as only small extents of land have been acquired, thereby
relocation or resettling the petitioners does not arise. They further contend
that no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioners to
establish loss of livelihood or displacement, and that such factual
determinations cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
2.7. It is contended that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the
compensation awards, they have an alternative statutory remedy under
Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, 1956 to approach the designated arbitrator,
and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3-Revenue
Divisional Officer, acting as Competent Authority for Land Acquisition
(CALA) and representing Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4. It is contended that
there has been full compliance with statutory procedure at every stage of
8
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
acquisition proceedings, right from issuance of Section 3A notification,
and adequate opportunities were provided to landowners.
3.1. It is contended that the acquisition relates to the greenfield
highway alignment from Km. 63.779 to Km. 88.418 in Jayashankar
Bhupalpally District, for which the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Bhupalpally, was designated as CALA through Gazette Notification
No.3099 dated 27.08.2019. The acquisition process formally commenced
with the publication of a Section 3A notification in newspapers on
25.03.2021, triggering a statutory 21-day period for objections, which
expired on 14.04.2021. The respondent asserts that while some objections
were received from certain interested persons, no objections were filed by
the present petitioners within this stipulated period. Consequently, the
process moved forward, and a Section 3D declaration was issued and
published on 22.02.2022.
3.2. It is contended that during the preparation of subdivision
records following the first Section 3D notification, certain extents of land
were found to have been inadvertently omitted from the initial Section 3A
notification. To address this, additional Section 3A notifications were
issued twice, strictly limited to the missing extents and without any
overlap, followed by corresponding Section 3D and Section 3G
proceedings after disposal of objections in accordance with Section 3C of
the Act. The respondent emphasizes that all such notifications were
published in compliance with statutory requirements, namely in two local
newspapers–“Mana Telangana” (Telugu) and “The Hindu” (English)–as
mandated, and that subsequent publications were made in the same
newspapers to maintain procedural consistency.
9
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
3.3. It is stated that environmental clearance for the project was
granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on
05.05.2023, and that this clearance was publicly notified in “Mana
Telangana” on 25.08.2023. The respondent also refers to final declarations
under Section 3D published in the Gazette of India on 28.02.2023 and
23.08.2023 for additional extents, emphasizing that under Section 3D(2),
the land vests absolutely in the Central Government upon such publication
and cannot be challenged thereafter.
3.4. It is stated that awards were passed under proceedings dated
20.01.2024 and 14.03.2024, after conducting due enquiry under Section
3G. These awardsdetermined compensation in accordance with Sections
26 to 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, including 100% solatium, 12%
additional market value calculated from the date of the Section 3A
notification to the date of the award, and a multiplication factor of 1.5
applicable to rural lands. Following the awards, notices under Section 3E
were issued to the petitioners to receive compensation, but the respondent
alleges that they failed to come forward to collect the amounts. The
respondent also details that where discrepancies in names or title were
identified, corrections were made at the award stage through speaking
orders based on original documents.
3.5. It is contended that certain landowners, including petitioner
No. 9, later submitted petitions highlighting discrepancies in survey
alignments and extents, prompting a re-survey. This re-survey revealed
variations, leading to the issuance of modified awards, supported by
revised enjoyment statements, and the publication of re-survey reports in
the village by Respondent No. 4. It is contended that these modifications
were not procedural lapses but were legitimate corrections. Further, in
10
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
relation to structures and trees, the initial resistance by some farmers
prevented enumeration during the survey stage, resulting in awards being
passed based on land value alone. However, after subsequent cooperation,
enumeration reports were received, and the respondent has undertaken that
supplementary award for structures and trees would be passed within one
week.
3.6. It is contended that both first and second notices were issued
on 08.03.2023 and placed in the Gram Panchayat office, with individual
notices served on the petitioners or their family members, including
service on the parents of petitioner No. 10. It is contended that no houses
have been displaced and that the petitioners do not fall within the
definition of “displaced family.” It is contended that since no relocation or
resettlement has occurred, the provisions of the Second and Third
Schedules of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are not attracted. The respondent
reiterates that only compensation-related provisions under Sections 26 to
30 apply, and that the compensation awarded already includes all statutory
benefits such as solatium and additional market value.
3.7. It is contended that out of 615 land losers affected by the
project, only the present petitioners have approached the Court. It is stated
some petitioners were parties to W.P. No. 13384 of 2023, which was
disposed of on 06.03.2024 with directions not to interfere with possession
without due process and compensation, and the directions of the Court
have been fully complied with through lawful acquisition proceedings and
payment of compensation, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
11
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, in response to the
counter affidavit of the respondent No.3, essentially contending that the
respondents have failed to demonstrate compliance with mandatory
procedural safeguards under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and that the acquisition process remains
fundamentally vitiated by lack of due process, absence of proper notice
and hearing, and failure to determine full statutory entitlements. They
therefore maintain that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
4.1. It is stated that the petitioners had submitted objections and
representations within time, however, the respondent has failed to produce
anyrecord of consideration of those objections. They assert that no
personal hearing under Section 3C was ever conducted and no order
disposing of objections was communicated to them at any stage.
4.2. It is contended that, by the respondent’s own admission, the
environmental clearance for the project was obtained only on 05.07.2023,
whereas the Section 3D declarations had already been issued earlier in
2022 and 2023. On this basis, they contend that the declarations
themselves are legally invalid, as they were made without prior
environmental approval, and the clearance granted in July 2023 amounts to
an impermissible post facto clearance.
4.3. The petitioners contend that the repeated issuance of
notifications–purportedly to cover “missing extents”–demonstrates a
lack of due diligence in finalizing the alignment and preparing land
records. This failure resulted in incomplete and vague initial notifications
that did not contain subdivision-wise or pattadar-wise details, thereby
depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to understand the extent of
acquisition and to file effective objections. They further state that the
12
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
issuance of a subsequent Section 3A notification on 19.04.2022 after a
Section 3D declaration dated 22.02.2022 is procedurally impermissible.
More critically, they allege that yet another Section 3A notification dated
09.12.2024 was issued for the same lands even after passing of awards and
after filing of the writ petition.
4.4. It is contended that proper individual notices under Section
3G(3) were not served, and merely placing notices in the Gram Panchayat
does not satisfy the requirement of issuing individual notices to affected
landowners. They further state that the alleged second Section 3G notice
was never made available and that they could access such documents only
later through RTI applications and newspaper publications. It is contended
that no proper survey or marking exercise was conducted by the
authorities, which is evident from the repeated issuance of notifications. It
is contended that if authorities could measure land extents, there was no
justification for failing to enumerate trees and structures, and therefore the
awards passed without including such components are incomplete and
invalid.
4.5. It is contended that Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits
under the Second Schedule, by virtue of the Removal of Difficulties Order,
2015, apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act; and that no
Rehabilitation and Resettlement awards have been passed till date, and
therefore possession cannot be taken until full statutory entitlements are
determined and paid.
4.6. The petitioners reject the respondent’s suggestion that they
should pursue arbitration under Section 3G(5), by contending that their
challenge is to the legality of the acquisition process itself. It is contended
that despite interim orders of the Court, the respondent authorities entered
13
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
the lands of petitioner Nos. 1 and 9 on 14.06.2025 and damaged standing
crops, and that no remedial action was taken despite representations and
indicate their intention to initiate contempt proceedings.
5. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners;
learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, learned Standing Counsel for
CALA,and Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would essentially contend that
the entire land acquisition process undertaken for the NH-163G project
from Km. 63.779 to Km. 88.418 is vitiated by procedural illegality,
arbitrariness, and violation of principles of natural justice, warranting
interference under Article 226. It is contended that the Section 3A
notifications dated 02.03.2021 and 19.04.2022, and the subsequent Section
3D declarations dated 22.02.2022 and 07.10.2022, suffer from lack of
proper publication, absence of landowners details, and failure to provide
meaningful opportunity to file objections, as the petitioners came to know
of the acquisition only in April 2021 through newspapers with no local
circulation. It is contended that although objections were filed and
reiterated on 31.05.2021, no personal hearing under Section 3C was
conducted and no order with regard to disposal of their objections was ever
communicated. It is further contended that the authorities issued multiple
and inconsistent notifications for the same lands without finalizing
alignment, thereby depriving the petitioners of their statutory rights. The
public notice under Section 3G(3) dated 08.03.2023 was the first instance
where actual extents were disclosed, and even thereafter, discrepancies in
survey numbers, omission of structures and trees, and lack of clarity
14
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
persisted. The awards dated 16.01.2024 and 09.03.2024 are assailed as
incomplete and arbitrary, as they exclude compensation for structures and
trees and omit mandatory Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits under
the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 read with the Removal of Difficulties Order
dated 28.08.2015. It is contended that the subsequent modification orders
dated 05.09.2024, altering extents and compensation without notice,
themselves demonstrate lack of due diligence and illegality in the original
awards. The counsel argues that possession cannot be taken under Section
3H unless full compensation, including R&R entitlements, is determined
and paid. It is also submitted that there was no proper survey, no Gram
Sabha consultation, and no transparency in the process. It is stated that out
of 11 petitioners, only petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are challenging the
acquisition proceedings in this writ petition, and the other petitioners
received the compensation and have withdrawn from the writ petition.
Learned counsel therefore seek to set aside the impugned notifications,
awards, and proceedings insofar as the petitioners No. 1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are
concerned, and that fresh acquisition proceedings be initiated, at least from
the Section 3G(3) stage if not from Section 3A, with proper notice,
accurate land details, and lawful determination of compensation including
all statutory benefits.
6.1. Learned counsel for the petitionersrelies on:
4) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai 4;
1
W.P. No. 11486 of 2024 (Telangana High Court)
2
(2024) 10 SCC 533
3
(2021) 14 SCC 703
4
(2005) 7 SCC 627
15
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
5) K. Ramachandram v. State of Telangana 5;
6) Madi Satyavati v. State of Telangana 6;
7) Manorama Devi v. National Highways Authority of India 7;
8) Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao 8;
9) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah 9;
10)Ranivr Singh v. National Highways Authority of India 10;
11) Union of India v. Shiv Raj 11;
12) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh 12
6.2. In Akkala Chandrakala (supra), this Courtconsidered a
dispute over land acquisition for the development of National Highway
765DG. The petitioners, whose homes were being acquired, sought
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, while government authorities argued that such
benefits were not applicable to the road-widening project under the
National Highways Act, 1956. This Court, by interim order dated
12.11.2024, rejected the authorities’ prayer to vacate an earlier stay order
and indicated that highway acquisitions remain subject to modern R&R
protections, and granted status quo until final hearing, while allowing
authorities to begin the formal process of determining and awarding R&R
compensation.
5
W.P. No. 23939 of 2013 (Telangana High Court)
6
W.A. No. 676 of 2023 (Telangana High Court)
7
Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:240588 – DB (Allahabad High Court)
8
(1973) 1 SCC 500
9
(2022) 15 SCC 1
10
2023 SCC OnLine All 5276
11
(2014) 6 SCC 564
12
1963 SCC OnLine SC 23
16
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
6.3. In Bimal Kumar Shah (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
broadened the understanding of the constitutional right to property under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India by stating that lawful land
acquisition requires more than just public purpose and compensation. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court identified seven essential procedural sub-rights–
including the right to notice, the right to be heard, and the right to a
reasoned decision–along with requirements for an efficient process and
fair rehabilitation. Ruling against the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the
Supreme Court held that any State action that ignores these safeguards is
invalid.
6.4. In B.K. Ravichandra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
clarified the limits of Government power over private property. The
Supreme Court held that although the right to property is no longer a
fundamental right, it remains a constitutional safeguard under Article 300-
A of the Constitution of India, protecting both physical land and intangible
assets, and the government cannot occupy private land indefinitely without
proper legal authority, as prolonged possession amounts to unlawful
deprivation of property. Emphasizing the rule of law, the Court rejected
any notion that the State can act with “royal prerogative” and insisted that
all State actions must be backed by clear statutory authority. As a result,
the Court ordered the return of land that had been held by the government
for over thirty years and directed that fair compensation be paid to the
rightful owners.
6.5. In Darius Shapur Chenai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court examined the procedural safeguards required under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 during the acquisition of private property. The
Supreme Court focused on whether the State had genuinely considered the
17
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
landowner’s objections as required under Section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. It held that the right to object and be heard under
Section 5-A is a significant safeguard–comparable in importance to a
fundamental right–and must involve a real and careful consideration by
the government rather than a mere formality. The Court further ruled that
when such decisions are challenged, the government must produce its
records to demonstrate that a fair decision-making process was followed.
Since the State failed to provide adequate evidence or a proper counter-
affidavit, the Court upheld the quashing of the acquisition, reinforcing that
laws allowing the taking of private property must be strictly interpreted to
prevent arbitrary state action.
6.6. In K. Ramachandram(supra), this Courtexamined whether
the government had followed the required statutory procedures while
attempting to acquire the petitioner’s land; and held that although the
preliminary notification remained valid because it had been properly
extended, the later declaration was unlawful due to the authorities’ failure
to prepare and publish mandatory rehabilitation and resettlement schemes
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Finding that these
procedural safeguards are essential to protect the landowner’s rights, the
declaration was quashed with a direction to the government to strictly
comply with the Act if it wishes to proceed with the acquisition, while also
encouraging both parties to pursue an amicable settlement through land
exchange or fair monetary compensation.
18
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
6.7. In Madi Satyavati v. State of Telangana 13, the Division
Bench of this Court dealt with a matter pertaining to land acquisition for a
railway project; and held that not only the mother, but also her three
daughters, qualify as an affected family under Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013; and modified a prior order to ensure that rehabilitation benefits
are determined for the daughters in addition to the mother’s solatium and
allowed the appellants to seek a formal reference if they are dissatisfied
with the final monetary compensation, reinforcing that the rights of all
affected family members must be recognized in land acquisition cases.
6.8. In Manorama Devi (supra), the Allahabad High Court
adjudicated a petition filed by Manorma Devi against the National
Highway Authority of India. The Allahabad High Court addressed her
claim for rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, which she had not
received despite being compensated for her land. The Court observed that
her grievance aligned with previous cases under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, where affected landowners were entitled to
additional support. It directed the authorities to prepare a formal proposal
within six months to provide the petitioner with entitlements for housing,
employment, and relocation as outlined in the Second Schedule of the Act,
and granted legal relief consistent with earlier, similar judgments.
6.9. In Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court examined whether the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act
violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by allowing the State to
acquire property at lower compensation rates than standard national laws.
13
W.A. No. 676 of 2023 (Telangana High Court)
19
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
The Supreme Court held that the Government cannot justify paying
different amounts for similar lands based solely on which authority
conducts the acquisition or the stated public purpose. Emphasizing the
principle of equal protection, the judgment affirmed that landowners are
entitled to consistent, market-value compensation regardless of the
acquiring body, and dismissed the appeal, ruling that discriminatory
treatment in compensation or statutory bonuses is unconstitutional.
6.10. In P. Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court addressed the determination of fair compensation and
clarified the role of Courts in reviewing arbitral awards under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held
that an arbitrator’s failure to provide adequate and intelligible reasoning
for compensation constitutes a ground of “patent illegality,” justifying
judicial intervention. Emphasizing equitable treatment for landowners,
including solatium and interest, the ruling aligned compensation practices
with constitutional protections and remanded the matter for recalculation
of the property’s market value using proper evidence and updated
guideline rates.
6.11. In Ranivr Singh (supra), the Allahabad High Court
addressed petitions by displaced families who claimed that the National
Highway Authority of India had failed to provide mandatory rehabilitation
and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. The Court held that the status of affected families must be properly
assessed, rejecting the authorities’ contention that linear road projects
cause minimal disruption. It directed the competent authority to conduct a
thorough inquiry and submit a resettlement proposal to the District
20
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
Collector, ensuring that eligible landowners receive entitlements such as
housing units, employment opportunities, or relocation allowances as part
of their compensation.
6.12. In Shiv Raj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Courtconsidered
the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The Supreme Court highlighted procedural lapses, including
violations of natural justice where objections were heard by one official
but the final report was issued by another without a fresh hearing. It also
examined the impact of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on older
cases where the government delayed possession or failed to provide
compensation for over five years.
6.13. InSinghara Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
addressed the admissibility of oral testimony regarding a defendant’s
confession, arising from a Second-Class Magistrate’s failure to follow
procedures under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-NHAI would contend
that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to
be dismissed in limine, as the entire land acquisition process for the NH-
163G project from Km. 63.779 to Km. 88.418 has been strictly conducted
in accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956 and the applicable
provisions of the Act of 2013. It is submitted that the acquisition
commenced with a Section 3A notification dated 02.03.2021, duly
published on 25.03.2021 in “Mana Telangana” and “The Hindu”, granting
21 days for objections, followed by a personal hearing conducted on
31.05.2021 at 11:00 AM, and disposal of objections through proceedings
21
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
dated 05.08.2021, culminating in the Section 3D declaration dated
22.02.2022. It is further contended that an additional Section 3A
notification dated 19.04.2022 was issued only to cover missing extents,
with no objections received, leading to a subsequent Section 3D
declaration dated 07.10.2022, upon which the land vested absolutely in the
Central Government. It is contended that environmental clearance was
granted on 05.07.2023, and thereafter a Section 3G(3) public notice dated
28.02.2023 required landowners to attend enquiry on 18.03.2023 and
submit claims. It is contended that awards dated 16.01.2024 and
09.03.2024 were passed after due enquiry, compensation determined under
Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, and amounts duly deposited, while a
modification award dated 05.09.2024 was issued only to rectify
discrepancies upon subsequent claims and surveys. It is further contended
that discrepancies, if any, were due to non-participation or failure of
certain petitioners to produce documents during enquiry, and were later
corrected lawfully. Learned counsel contends that Rehabilitation and
Resettlement benefitsapply only in cases of actual displacement, and the
petitioners do not qualify as “displaced families” under Section 3(k), as
only small extents were acquired. It is also submitted that the petitioners
have not produced any proof of loss of livelihood, and the petitioners have
an alternative remedy under Section 3G(5) by way of arbitration, and the
writ petition not maintainable. It is contended that the directions in W.P.
No. 13384 of 2023 have been misinterpreted by the petitioners; and that
the present project is a vital public infrastructure initiative involving
limited right-of-way of about 45 to 70 meters, causing minimal
displacement, and any delays would lead to escalation of costs and loss to
the public exchequer, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
22
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
8. Learned counsel for the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition
(CALA) would contend that the entire acquisition process for the NH-
163G greenfield highway from Km. 63.779 to Km. 88.418 has been
conducted strictly in accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956
and the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. It is submitted that the
3rd respondent was duly appointed as CALA vide Gazette Notification No.
3099 dated 27.08.2019, and the acquisition commenced with publication of
Section 3A notification on 25.03.2021, granting 21 days up to 14.04.2021
for filing objections, during which the present petitioners failed to submit
any objections. It is contended that thereafter Section 3D declaration was
validly issued on 22.02.2022, and additional Section 3A notifications were
subsequently issued only to cover omitted extents, followed by
corresponding 3D and 3G proceedings after due disposal of objections, all
duly published in “Mana Telangana” and “The Hindu” as mandated.
Learned counsel contends that environmental clearance was obtained on
05.07.2023 and published on 25.08.2023, and final declarations under
Section 3D were also published on 28.02.2023 and 23.08.2023, upon
which the land vested absolutely in the Central Government. It is further
contended that awards were passed on 20.01.2024 and 14.03.2024 after
due enquiry under Section 3G, determining compensation in terms of
Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, including 100% solatium, 12%
additional market value, and multiplication factor of 1.5, and that notices
under Section 3E were issued, but the petitioners failed to come forward to
receive compensation. Learned counsel submits that any discrepancies in
names, extents or survey details were corrected through re-survey
conducted upon representations of landowners, leading to modified
awards, which are lawful corrective measures and not procedural lapses. It
23
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
is contended that omission of structures and trees in initial awards was due
to resistance by some farmers during survey, and supplementary awards
are being processed based on subsequent enumeration. Learned counsel
contends that the petitioners failed to file objections within time, and all
notifications were properly published as per statute. It is further submitted
that Section 3G(3) notices dated 08.03.2023 were issued and displayed in
Gram Panchayat offices and served individually, and therefore adequate
opportunity was provided. Learned counsel contends that no houses were
displaced and the petitioners do not fall within the definition of “displaced
family,” thereby the Second and Third Schedules are not applicable.
9. Learned Additional Solicitor General relies on several judgments in
support of his contention that a writ remedy is not maintainable in the
instant case; particularly on Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of
Maharashtra14 and contends that the Courts have to weigh the public
interest vis-Ã -vis the private interest while exercising the power and there
are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong, and
that quashing of acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress.
9.1. He also relies on Nerajala Nageswara Rao v. Union of
India 15, to contend that alternative remedy harsh one should not be
resorted in public purpose projects and larger public purpose prevails over
individual interest. He also relies on N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar
Jain16, to contend that construction of road is an infrastructure project and
keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects
should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold
its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project.
14
1997 (1) SCC 134
15
2017 SCC Online Hyd 250
16
2022 (6) SCC 127
24
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
9.2. He also relies on Bluepark Seafoods (P) Ltd v. District
Collector17 and contends that in case of acquisition for benefit of general
public, the landowner can stake claim for reasonable compensation and
nothing beyond that. Relying on NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Company
Ltd 18, it is contended that National Highways Act is a special enactment
and a comprehensive code which provides an inbuilt mechanism for
initiating acquisition until culmination of the proceedings in determining
the compensation and its adjudication by arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of
the NH Act.
9.3. He also relies on the judgment of the High Court of
Karnataka, at Bengaluru, in W.P.No.10103 of 2020 (LA-RES) and
batch, dated 19.07.2022, and contends that in the said case, the High
Court of Karnataka has set aside the awards passed by the CALA and
directed the authority to redetermine the compensation afresh, and if the
parties are aggrieved by the fresh awards passed by the CALA, the parties
can approach the arbitrator.
9.4. He also relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
M/s Tirupati Developers v. The Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli19, and contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the
Collector to give one opportunity to the appellant therein to submit its
objections, followed by personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate
award after holding inquiry under Section 23 of the RTCTLARR Act, and
therefore similar dispensation may be shown in the present writ petition as
well in view of similarity of facts.
17
2011 SCC OnLine AP 267
18
(2020) 15 SCC 161
19
Civil Appeal No.4952 of 2023, dated August 7, 2023
25
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
10. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the
record, it may be noted that the grievance of the petitioners essentially is
that multiple notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the National
Highways Act were issued with incomplete information, inadequate
publication, and without providing proper landowner-wise details, maps,
or an effective opportunity to file objections with regard to the acquisition
of their agricultural lands for the proposed four-lane National Highway-
163G, and that their objections were not properly considered. It is also
contended that the authorities proceeded with the declaration and award
process even before obtaining environmental clearance, issued additional
notifications without informing the affected landowners, and passed
incomplete compensation awards without determining compensation for
structures and trees, and without granting rehabilitation and resettlement
benefits as required under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the Removal of
Difficulties Order, 2015. They also allegedenial of statutory entitlements,
and attempts by the authorities to forcibly take possession of their lands
without paying lawful compensation, thereby threatening their livelihood
as small and marginal farmers. It is also their grievance that the
compensation cannot be confined only to the land on the mere ground that
the land is an agricultural extent, and that compensation should also be
granted for the structures existing on the land, and rehabilitation and
resettlement benefits should be extended to the petitioners.
10.1. On the contrary, the essential contention of the respondents
(NHAI and CALA authorities) is that the acquisition of the petitioners’
land for the construction of the four-lane National Highway-163G
(Mancherial-Warangal Greenfield Corridor) has been carried out strictly in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the National Highways
26
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
Act, 1956 and the applicable provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and
that all statutory steps–issuance of notifications under Sections 3A and
3D, consideration of objections under Section 3C, conduct of enquiry, and
passing of compensation awards under Section 3G–were duly followed.
According to them, adequate opportunity was given to the landowners, and
compensation has been determined and deposited as per law.It is also their
contention that the entire village or villages have not been acquired,
requiring the villagers, along with their houses, cattle, and livelihood, to be
shifted/relocated to an alternative location, or re-establish the village at
some other place entirely; but only such extent of land(s) that is under
alignment would go into the highway project, and only such limited
extents of land(s) were acquired, and therefore there cannot be any
contentions of displacement of persons requiring rehabilitation and
resettlement under the RFCTLARR Act because they are not “displaced
families”. It is contended that any grievance regarding compensation must
be pursued through the statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5)
of the National Highways Act rather than through a writ petition, and the
petitioners’ allegations are unfounded. They further contend that the
interim order restraining the project may be vacated since it delays a
project of national importance and public interest.
11. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the project concerns the laying
of a four-lane National Highway (Mancherial-Warangal Greenfield
Corridor), and that land acquisition has been undertaken for the said
highway. In land acquisition for a National Highway of this nature,
connecting highways across States, the acquisition process or the laying of
the highway per se cannot be stalled indefinitely by taking recourse to the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Ultimately, the sole grievance that
27
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
can be agitated by the aggrieved persons is confined to the compensatory
benefits in lieu of the lands acquired, which is pecuniary in nature.
11.1 Further, the petitioners’ grievance with regard to entitlement
to compensation for structures, trees, standing crops, or even alternative
rehabilitation/resettlement benefits is also justiciable, provided such
structures are legally permitted, and the CALA has certified that the
structures/crops, etc., have been affected in the land acquisition process, in
a way that resettlement and rehabilitation is necessary.
11.2 Be that as it may, in land acquisition for a public purpose,
unless there are proven malafides, neither is the acquisition liable to be set
aside, nor can the opinion of experts–either with regard to the alignment
of the highway or with regard to the determination of factual aspects such
as the extent of land acquired and the monetary compensation payable–be
substituted by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
12. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty 20, wherein it
was held as follows:
“24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a
professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the
field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The
projects involving construction of new highways and widening
and development of the existing highways, which are vital for
development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to
experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having
vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development20
(2011) 12 SCC 69
28
wp_34438_2024
NBK, Jand maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating
to development and maintenance of National Highways after
thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project
reports are prepared keeping in view the relevant factors including
intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The
Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and
feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular
alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such
matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can
nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the
particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the
mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.”
13. Further, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.774 of 2024, dated
07.08.2024, which is an appeal filed challenging a Notification for laying a
national highway. The Hon’ble Division Bench, by referring to various
precedent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, more particularly
Kushala Shetty (supra), held as follows:
“12. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the
projects involving construction of new highways and widening
and development of existing highways are vital for development of
infrastructure of the country. The projects have been entrusted to
the experts in the field of highways and it comprises of persons
having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway
development and maintenance. The NHAI is implementing the
project relating to development and maintenance after thorough
study by experts.
13. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of the notification
issued under the Act, award has already been passed on
10.05.2022 and petitioners No.8 and 11 in W.P.No.24150 of 2021
29
wp_34438_2024
NBK, Jhave even received the compensation. The project is virtually
complete except for a small stretch.”
14. In this connection, it is to be noted that under Section 3G of the
National Highways Act, determination of compensation is entrusted to the
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA). Significantly, Section
3G(5) expressly provides that where the amount determined by the
Competent Authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the matter
shall, on application, be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central
Government–ordinarily the District Collector. Thus, the statute itself
creates a complete adjudicatory mechanism for redressal of disputes
relating to compensation.
15. Further, once the Arbitrator renders an award under Section 3G(5)
of the National Highways Act, 1956, such award is governed by the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and the persons
aggrieved by the arbitral award has a further statutory remedy under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the competent
Civil Court.
16. Though the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, its
invocation comes with the rider that there should be exceptional
circumstances, warranting invocation under Article 226 bypassing the
statutory remedy. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of
30
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trademarks 21, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
“15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having
regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not
to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon
itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally
exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least
three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed
for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where
there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or
where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or
the vires of an Act is challenged.”
17. In the instant writ petition, this Court does not find any violation of
fundamental rights per se, or any violation of the principles of natural
justice, or any jurisdictional error on the part of the respondent authorities;
nor does the writ petition challenge the vires of the Act passed by the
competent authority. Further, it is the specific unrebutted contention of the
respondents, borne out by the record, that out of 615 affected persons, only
the present petitioners are challenging the acquisition with the claim of
compensation for structures, trees, etc., and also rehabilitation and
resettlement benefits. Further, some of the writ petitioners in this writ
petition have accepted the compensation, and withdrawn from the writ
petition. Furthermore, despite there being certain delay in obtaining
environmental clearance, the very acquisition notifications cannot be set
aside, as the issuance of notifications and their publication in Mana
21
1998 (8) SCC 1
31
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
Telangana (Telugu) and The Hindu (English) newspapers, and considering
of objections are prima facienot in dispute. The contention of the
petitioners that the newspapers have little circulation and the petitioners
were not aware cannot be countenanced, as primarily they submitted their
objections.
18. Though the petitioners contend that they are entitled to certain
rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, it cannot be disputed that the
competent authority should have certified that the affected landowner has
been displaced. Furthermore, the petitioners have a two-step statutory
remedy, one under the National Highways Act, 1956 and, if still aggrieved,
the second under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore
the petitioners are not remediless.
19. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kushala
Shetty (supra), and Whirlpool Corporation (supra), and also the
judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No.774 of 2024, dated
07.08.2024, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstances to
entertain the writ petitionbypassing the statutory mechanism provided
under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
20. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the
petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the
National Highways Act, 1956 and thereafter, if necessary, under Section
34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No costs. Interim order
dated 06.12.2024 stands vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
32
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
07thApril, 2026
ksm
33
wp_34438_2024
NBK, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 34438 of 2024
07thApril, 2026
ksm
