Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Between vs Union Of India And Others on 24 February, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Date on which judgment was reserved : 03.02.2026
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 24.02.2026
Date on which judgment was uuploaded
on the website of the High Court : 24.02.2026
APHC010195642023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 10084/2023
Between:
Bumanapalli Ravindranath Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND
SOLICITORS LAW FIRM
2.
3. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
2
WRIT PETITION NO: 14025/2023
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
G.ramakrishna Reddy, and Others
AND
...RESPONDENT(S)
Union Of India and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND
SOLICITORS LAW FIRM
2. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
3. GP FOR REVENUE
4.
WRIT PETITION NO: 14414/2023
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
Ambati Krishna Reddy and Others
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N ASHWANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND
SOLICITORS LAW FIRM
3. GP FOR REVENUE
4. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel)
3
WRIT PETITION NO: 4510/2024
Between:
Bumanapalli Ravindranath Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND
SOLICITORS LAW FIRM
3. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel)
The Court made the following:
4
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.10084 of 2023, 14025 of 2023,
14414 of 2023 and 4510 of 2024
COMMON ORDER :
1. Since these Writ Petitions raise the same facts
and the points involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and
the same, at request of all the counsel, these Writ Petitions
are being disposed of, by way of this common order.
2. Writ Petition Nos. 10084 of 2023, 14025 of 2023
and 14414 of 2023 are filed by owners of various lands
seeking to declare the Notification issued under Section 3A
of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Act 48 of 1956),
published in Praja Sakthi daily newspaper dated
21.11.2022, and the declaration under Section 3D of the
Act, 1956 published in Gazette Notification in S.O.1366 (E),
dated 22.03.2023 issued by 1st respondent, insofar as the
lands of the petitioners therein, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Writ Petition No.4510 of 2024 is filed seeking to
declare the Notification issued under Section 3A of the Act,
1956, published in Hans Daily newspaper dated
14.08.2023, and the declaration under Section 3D of the
5
Act, 1956 published in Gazette Notification in S.O.443(E),
dated 02.02.2024 issued by 1st respondent, insofar as the
lands of the petitioners therein viz. land in survey
No.246/1B admeasuring an extent of 1.157 hectares and
survey No.246/2B admeasuring 0.497 hectares, of Velpula
village, Vemula mandal, YSR Kadapa district, as illegal and
arbitrary.
4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the
respondents in proposing to acquire their lands for the
purpose of formation of newly proposed road from KM
75.000 to KM 199.000 of proposed Bangalore-Mydukuru
(Kadapa)-Amaravati/Vijayawada Green Field Corridor in
the district of YSR Kadapa (for short, ‗subject Green Field
Corridor’).
5. (a) It is the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos. 10084 of 2023, 14025 of 2023 and 4510 of 2024 that
on coming to know about the proposed acquisition of land,
the petitioners submitted objections/representations before
the Joint Collector concerned and in the office of the
National Highways Authority. But, without conducting an
6
enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing on
the objections, as contemplated under Section 3C of the
Act, 1956, the competent authority seems to have sent a
report to 1st respondent stating that objections were
received and the same were considered and disallowed. On
the basis of the said report, the declarations under Section
3D of the Act, 1956 were notified under the impugned
Gazette Notifications.
(b) It is their further case that the subject lands
belonging to the petitioners fall between double trumpet
interchange and the proposed acquisition of the said lands
is not for the purpose of formation of highway but it would
be used for commercial activity in future, in which case the
provisions of the Act, 1956 are not applicable, and hence,
initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the
said Act is without jurisdiction.
(c) It is their further case that in the impugned
Notifications issued by the authorities, only survey
numbers and extents of land were mentioned, and no
details with regard to names of owners of the land have
7
been mentioned. It is their further case that as per the
provisions of the Act, 1956, after publication of the
Notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, the affected
persons have right to submit their objections, which have
to be considered by giving opportunity of hearing as
envisaged under Section 3C of the Act, 1956. But, in the
absence of publication of names of the owners of the
property, the very intent and purpose of issuance of the
Notifications is lost.
(d) It is their further case that by publishing the
Notifications in newspapers without sufficient circulation in
the proposed area of acquisition of the property, the very
purpose for which the Notification was published in
newspapers, is lost.
(e) In view of non-adhering to the mandatory
provisions under the Act, 1956, the entire proceedings
initiated under the provisions of the Act, 1956 are vitiated.
Hence, the Writ Petitions.
8
6. It is the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition
No. 14414 of 2023 that they were not aware of the Gazette
dated 22.3.2023 and they came to know about the proposal
for acquisition only when they made an application for
conversion of their land from agricultural purpose to non-
agricultural purpose and when the same was rejected by
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu on the
ground of issuance of the aforesaid Gazette; that in view of
the same, they could not submit any objections; that the
respondents failed to give a local paper publication in the
locality where the subject land is being acquired and failed
to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein
as contemplated under Section 3C of the Act, 1956.
7. 2nd respondent-NHAI filed counter affidavits
denying the material averments in the writ affidavits and
stating inter alia as follows.
(a) For the subject Green Field Corridor, the Joint
Collector, Kadapa was appointed under the provisions of
the Act, 1956 as the Competent Authority-Land Acquisition
(CALA), who initiated the proceedings for acquisition of
9
various lands required for the said project. The Central
Government published Gazette Notification under Section
3A of the Act, 1956 vide S.O.No.5352(E), dated 16.11.2022
in respect of various lands declaring its intention to acquire
the lands specified therein and also requiring the interested
persons to raise any objections as per Section 3C of the Act,
1956 before the CALA within 21 days from the date of its
publication. The Notification under Section 3A of the Act,
1956 was published in two daily news papers Praja Shakti
and Hans India on 14.8.2023 insofar as the lands which
are subject matter of Writ Petition No.4510 of 2024, and on
21.11.2022 insofar as the lands which are subject matter of
other Writ Petitions. Objections under Section 3C of the
Act, 1956 have to be submitted within 21 days from the
date of publication of Section 3A Notification, but, as
confirmed by the CALA, objections under Section 3C of the
Act, 1956 were received after lapse/expiry of 21 days from
the date of publication of Section 3A Notification and
therefore the same are not to be considered as per law.
Further, in their objections, the concern raised by the
10
petitioners is only in relation to rate of compensation for
the acquisition of the lands, whereby they sought open
market value rate for the lands acquired, and no objection
has been raised with regard to the validity of Section 3A
Notification and to the proposed land acquisition
thereunder.
(b) NHAI has proposed, and is acquiring, the
minimum required lands for the purpose of subject Green
Field Corridor and the lands acquired will be used only for
the purpose of the said project.
(c) Gazette Notification under Section 3D of the Act,
1956 was published vide S.O.No.1366 (E), dated
22.03.2023 thereby declaring that the lands so described
and mentioned in the said Notification were acquired and
vested in Central Government, free from all kinds of
encumbrances as per Section 3D (2) of the Act, 1956 and
the same cannot be called in question in any Court or
before any authority as per Section 3D (4) of the Act, 1956.
In the said Notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956,
further details of the notified lands under acquisition viz.
11
survey numbers, type of lands, nature of land, extent of
area and name of owners as per revenue records, are
provided, and in view of status quo order dated 10.05.2023
passed by this Court, further proceedings in the land
acquisition including paper publication of Public Notice
under Section 3G (3) of the Act, 1956 and passing of the
CALA’s Award for compensation under Section 3G(1) of the
Act, 1956 are kept pending.
(d) It is further stated that by virtue of the definition of
‗highways’ under the provisions of the Control of National
Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002, the lands that are
between double trumpet interchange are part of the
highway and their acquisition is also an acquisition for the
purpose of formational of National Highway. The project is
a fully Access Controlled Highway and the interchanges
were proposed to facilitate entry/exit of the vehicular traffic
to/from the proposed Green Field Corridor from/to the
existing road network, and are developed keeping in view
road user safety. The inside areas of these interchanges
are also being acquired to facilitate the development of the
12
National Highway. Acquisition of the subject lands is being
done for the purpose of formation of National Highway in
public interest and not for the purpose of establishment of
commercial activities in future.
(e) As regards environmental clearance, as per the
Guidelines of the EIA Notification 2006 for new Green Field
Highways in line with Section 3 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986, environmental clearances have to
be obtained before actual construction or building work for
any such projects. In the case on hand, the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued
environmental clearance on 02.02.2024 to various projects
which is prior to actual civil constructions works being
started for the subject NH projects and the current subject
land acquisition is a part of these mentioned Highway
projects.
(f) In case the petitioners are not satisfied with the
amount of compensation determined by the CALA, they are
at liberty to file an application before the Arbitrator, as
13
appointed by the Central Government under the provisions
of the Act, 1956, and the District Collector is appointed as
Arbitrator under Section 3 G (5) of the Act, 1956.
(g) The Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions held
that the Courts should refrain from interfering or granting
interim stays on the projects of national importance, and
that the Courts should be reluctant in interfering with the
contracts involving technical issues. There are no bona
fides in the present Writ Petitions. Hence, it is prayed to
dismiss the Writ Petitions.
8. The Competent Authority (LA) and Joint
Collector, Kadapa filed counter affidavits denying the
material averments in the writ affidavits and stating inter
alia that the Government of India gave orders for formation
of the subject Green Field Express Highway from 75.000
KM to 199.00 KM from Kanampalli of Pulivendula to
Kavalakuntla of Porumamilla mandal, and the road covers
in 12 mandals and 49 revenue villages with a distance of
124 KM in YSR Kadapa district. Pursuant to the same, as
per the procedure, Notifications under Sections 3A, 3D and
14
3G of the Act, 1956 were published and Awards were also
passed in respect of the all 49 villages. Publication of the
Notifications in local newspapers is within the control of 2nd
respondent. In the Notification under Section 3A of the Act,
1956, only survey numbers, extent and classification of the
land are mentioned and name of the land owners are not
mentioned as per the procedure prescribed under the Act,
1956. Section 3A (2) of the Act, 1956 states that every
Notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief
description of the land. Notification under Section 3G of
the Act, 1956 was published with the details of the enjoyers
and assets situated on the lands, in the local newspapers
and Awards are also passed for all the villages, except
Velpula village in view of the Order of this Court in I.A.No.1
of 2023 in W.P.No.10084 of 2023. The subject lands are
acquired for the purpose of construction and expansion of
National Highway. No objections have been received within
the stipulated time of 21 days as per Section 3 C (1) of the
Act, 1956.
15
2nd respondent is responsible for publication of
Notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 in
newspapers, and the same has been published as per the
provisions in force. Thereafter, publication under Section
3D of the Act, 1956 was also made in the notified area i.e.
in the offices of the local Tahsildar, the MPDO, police
stations and Grama Sachivalayam, and the same was
published in two daily newspapers, informing the interested
persons to attend Section 3G Award enquiry, mentioning
the date, venue and time. This respondent followed the
procedure pursuant to the requisition given by the NHAI
authorities as per the interest and intention of the
Government. The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and
are liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior
counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 10084 of 2023, 14025 of
2023 and 4510 of 2024; Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.14414 of
2023; Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing
16
for the learned counsel for NHAI and the learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 4
and 5. Perused the record.
10. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 10084 of
2023 and 4510 of 2024 are owners of various extents of
lands situated in Velpula village, Vemula mandal, YSR
Kadapa district, whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.14025 of 2023 are owners of various extents of lands
situated in Pitchapadu village, Chapadu mandal, YSR
Kadapa district and the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.14414 of 2023 are owners of various extents of lands
situated in Tippaluru village, Yerraguntla mandal, YSR
Kadapa district.
11. For the purpose of acquisition of lands for
formation of the subject Green Field Corridor, the
impugned Notifications were issued under Section 3A of the
Act, 1956 in newspapers and the impugned declarations
under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 were published in
Gazette, whereunder the respective lands belonging to the
17
petitioners herein were sought to be acquired by the
respondent-authorities.
12. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel
firstly contended that under Section 3A (3) of the Act, 1956,
the competent authority shall cause substance of the
Notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of
which will be in a vernacular language, and the purpose of
the said publication in newspapers is with a view that the
persons in the locality would be aware of the proposed
acquisition of the property. He submits that in the case on
hand, the Notifications were got published in Tirupati
Telugu Edition of Praja Shakti daily dated 21.11.2022 and
Hans India daily English newspaper dated 21.11.2022, and
as per the information submitted by owners of the press,
circulation of Praja Sakthi Daily is 25,784 and Hans India
daily is 4,317; that by virtue of the publication of the
Notifications in the said newspapers, the purpose of
publication that the persons in the locality would be aware
of the proposed acquisition of the property, is lost.
18
13. It is the contention of Sri N.Ashwani Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.14414 of 2023 that the petitioners in the said Writ
Petition were not aware of the issuance of the Notification
under Section 3A(1) of the Act, 1956, and they came to
know about the proposal for acquisition only when the
application made by the petitioners therein for conversion
of their land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural
purpose, was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Jammalamadugu on the ground of issuance of the
aforesaid Gazette. He submits that in view of the same, the
petitioners therein could not submit any objections and the
respondents did not provide opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners therein as contemplated under Section 3C of the
Act, 1956.
14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners relied on the following decisions.
(i) in Kolla Sambasiva Rao v. Union of India & others,1
wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 57 and 69)
1
2024 SCC OnLine AP 5603
19
“57. So far as the submissions on the violation of the
principles of natural justice in deciding the
objections are concerned, Section 3-C of the NH Act
provides for hearing the objections. In Marella Marithi
Prasada Rao case5, this Court held that Section 3-C
deals with hearing of objections. Under sub-section
(1) thereof, any person interested in the land may,
within 21 days from the date of publication of the
notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A,
object to the use of the land for the purpose or
purposes mentioned in that sub-section. Section 3-
C(2) of the NH Act stipulates that every objection,
under Section 3-C(1), shall be made to the competent
authority in writing and shall set out the grounds
thereof, and the competent authority shall give the
objector an opportunity of being heard, either in
person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after
hearing all such objections and after making such
further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, by
order, either allow or disallow the objections. The
right to submit objections is conferred on a person
interested in the land i.e. the person whose lands are
sought to be acquired. The person interested in the
land has not only the right to submit his written
objections, but also the right to an oral hearing,
either in person or through a legal practitioner and
during hearing of the objections, under Section 3-
C(1) of the Act, the person, whose lands are sought
20
to be acquired, would be entitled to put forth all such
contentions as are available in law.
…
69. The proposition of law is well-settled that
opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 3-C
of the NH Act is to be provided and the same is not
ritual or empty formality. That is a valuable right
and such opportunity is to be provided in
consonance with the principles of natural justice.‖
(ii) in Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy v. Union
Government of India & others2, wherein it is held thus:
(paragraphs 14 and 15).
―14. In the case on hand, violation of the mandatory
provisions of Section 3 – C(2) by the 4th respondent,
in failing to provide an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner (despite the mandate of Section 3 – C(2)
and the specific request of the petitioner in this
behalf vide his memorandum of objections dated
27.11.2008 and 04.01.2010), is established. On
account of this illegality, all the proceedings
subsequent to the stage under Section 3 – C(1) are
void and inoperative and the fact of publication of a
declaration under Section 3 – D(1) would not cure
that fatal infirmity.
2
2012 (6) ALD 58 (DB)
21
15. Affording of opportunity to persons whose lands
are proposed for acquisition under the 1956 Act,
mandated by Section 3 – C(1) is neither a ritual nor
an empty formality. It is a salutary provision akin to
the provisions of Section 5 – A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. In Union of India v. Mukesh
Hans[1]; Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja[2];
Mahender Pal and ors. v. State of Haryana and
ors.[3]; Anand Singh v. State of U.P.[4]; Radhy
Shyam v. State of U.P.[5]; and in Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra
Kumar and others[6], the Supreme Court observed
that the opportunity of hearing to the land owners to
object to acquisition of their lands is a valuable right
which cannot be jettisoned for jejune reasons and
that such opportunity and compliance with rules of
natural justice is a small price which the State
should always be prepared to pay before it can
deprive any person of his property. These
observations of the apex court made in the context of
the Land Acquisition Act apply to the present
acquisition a fortiori.‖
15. On the other hand, it is submitted by the
learned senior counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy appearing for the
learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, so also the learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, that the
22
requirements of law as mandated under the provisions of
the Act, 1956 have been complied with, by the respondents,
by issuing Section 3A (1) Notification in two local
newspapers, one of which in vernacular language; that
there is no requirement under the Statute to mention
names of land owners in the said Notification, and that the
description of the land as notified in the Notification would
meet the requirement of law; that no objections were
received within the time stipulated under Section 3C of the
Act, 1956, and the objections, if any, made thereafter are
with regard to rate of compensation. Hence, he prays to
dismiss the Writ Petitions.
16. Section 3A of the Act, 1956 deals with the power
of Central Government to acquire land, etc. According to
the Section 3A (1), where the Central Government is
satisfied that for a public purpose, any land is required for
the building, maintenance, management or operation of a
national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in
Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land.
As per Section 3A (2) of the Act, 1956, every Notification
23
under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the
land and Section 3A (3) contemplates that the competent
authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be
published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a
vernacular language.
17. The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the Act,
1956 makes it clear that when once the Central
Government is satisfied that any land is required for the
building, maintenance, management or operation of a
national highway or part thereof, then, it shall declare its
intention to acquire such land by issuing a notification in
the Official Gazette giving ‗brief description’ of the land.
The substance of the Notification is also to be published in
two local newspapers of which one has to be in a
vernacular language. ‗Any person interested in the land’
can file objections within 21 days from the date of
publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette, to the
competent authority, in writing. Thereafter, the competent
authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of
hearing either in person or through a legal practitioner.
24
The said exercise is to be followed by an Order of the
competent authority either allowing or rejecting the
objections. In case no objection is made to the competent
authority in terms of Sectio 3C (1) or in case the objections
made are disallowed, then the competent authority has to
submit a report to the Central Government, which shall
then issue a Notification in the Official Gazette that the
land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes
mentioned in Section 3A (1) Notification. On publication of
declaration under Section 3D (1), the land vests absolutely
in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
18. In the case on hand, the Joint Collector, Kadapa
is appointed as the Competent Authority for Land
Acquisition, under the provisions of the Act, 1956. The
Central Government published Gazette Notification under
Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 vide S.O.No.5352(E), dated
16.11.2022 in respect of various lands declaring its
intention to acquire the lands specified therein and also
requiring the interested persons to raise any objections as
per Section 3C of the Act, 1956 before the CALA within 21
25
days from the date of its publication. The substance of the
Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 was
published in two daily newspapers Praja Shakti and Hans
India on 14.8.2023 insofar as the lands which are subject
matter of Writ Petition No.4510 of 2024, and on 21.11.2022
insofar as the lands which are subject matter of other Writ
Petitions.
19. On this aspect, it is the contention of the learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos. 10084 of 2023, 14025 of 2023 and 4510 of 2024 that
the circulation of said daily newspapers is very low and the
petitioners could not get knowledge about the intention of
the Government to acquire their lands. It is the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.14414 of 2023 that the petitioners in the said Writ
Petition came to know about the proposal for acquisition
only when the application made by the petitioners therein
for conversion of their land from agricultural purpose to
non-agricultural purpose, was rejected by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu on the ground of
26
issuance of the aforesaid Gazette. It is their contention
that the Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956
does not contain names of the owners, except mentioning
the details of the lands proposed to be acquired. He
submits that in view of the same, the petitioners could not
submit effective objections under Section 3C (1) of the Act,
1956 within the stipulated in the said Notification and
hence, the very object of publishing the Notification is lost,
and as the due procedure contemplated under the
provisions of the Act, 1956 is not followed, the entire
acquisition process is vitiated.
20. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision
goes to show that it does not contemplate that the
Notification has to be published in widely circulated
newspapers. The provision speaks to the extent of
publishing in two local newspapers, one of which will be in
a vernacular language. Except that, nowhere in the
provision, it is stated that circulation of the paper should
be wide enough. It is pertinent to note here that the
stipulation of publication of the Notification in the
27
vernacular language is essentially for the reason that the
villagers would be aware of the proposal of the Government
to acquire their lands. In the case on hand, the said
requirement of law has been complied with, by the
respondent-authorities by publishing the substance of the
Notification in the aforesaid daily newspapers viz. Praja
Shakti and Hans India. In view of the fact that
requirement of law has been complied with, by the
respondents-authorities, and there is no statutory
infraction rendering the impugned Notification invalid, the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the said newspapers have no wide
circulation, so also the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.14414 of 2023 that
the petitioners therein were not aware of the issuance of the
Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956, is not
sustainable.
21. As regards the contention with regard to non-
disclosure of names of land owners in the Notification
issued under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956, Section 3A (2)
28
of the Act, 1956 contemplates that every Notification under
sub-section (1) of Section 3A shall give a ‗brief description’
of the land proposed to be acquired. The provisions of the
Act, 1956 do not contemplate that names of the land
owners whose lands are proposed to be acquired, have to
be mentioned in the Notification under Section 3A (1) of the
Act, 1956. The National Highways Act, 1956 is a
comprehensive Code by itself and it is a special legislation
enacted by the Parliament for acquisition of land required
for the building, maintenance, management or operation of
a National Highway or part thereof. Unlike the provisions
in other enactments relating to land acquisition, there
appears to be a conscious departure insofar as this Act is
concerned, from notifying all particulars of land in detail
mentioning name of the land owner, etc.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v.
Narasimha Murthy & others, while dealing with a case of
Notification under Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka
Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, held
29
that omission to mention name of the land owner in the
Notification does not vitiate the same.
23. A Division Bench of the erstwhile common High
Court in Government of India v. M.Ramesh Babu & others3,
while dealing with similar contentions, set aside the Order
of the learned single Judge quashing the Notification. The
preliminary Notification challenged in the said case,
contained not only name of the village, survey number/
division number, type of the land, area sought to be
acquired, but also referred in clear terms that the
interested persons can inspect the land plans and other
details of the land covered by the Notification. The Division
Bench held that it not only contained the description of the
land proposed to be acquired, but also mentioned that the
land plans and other details of the land covered by the
Notification are available in the office of the competent
authority and the interested persons can inspect the same,
and accordingly allowed the Writ Appeal, setting aside the
Order passed by the learned single Judge quashing the
Notification, and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition,
3
Judgment dated 19.09.2007 in W.A.No.504 of 2007
30
holding that if there was any ambiguity in the particulars
incorporated in the Notification, the writ petitioners therein
could have approached the competent authority and
inspected the land plans and other details and then filed
their objections, but such a course was not adopted.
24. Another Division Bench of the erstwhile common
High Court in Dano Vaccines & Biological (P) Limited,
Hyderabad v. Government of India4, while dealing with the
similar contentions that the preliminary notification issued
under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 did not divulge full
description of the lands to be acquired and fell foul of the
requirement of Section 3A (2) of the Act, 1956, rejected the
same by referring to judgment in Government of India v.
M.Ramesh Babu & others (1 supra).
25. In a decision rendered by a learned single Judge
of this Court in Writ Petition No.1924 of 2021, dated
31.3.2021, it is held thus: (paragraph 12)
―Applying the above analogy and in the light of the
judicial pronouncements referred to, supra, this Court
is of the considered view that non-mentioning of the
4
2012 (2) ALD 387 (DB)
31
name of the land owner or particulars of petroleum
outlet, etc., in the impugned notification, would not
amount to violation of provisions of the Act, nor vitiate
the notification, and the consequential declaration.‖
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it can
be held that non-mention of names of land owners in the
Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 does not
vitiate the proceedings and there is no statutory infraction
to render the subject Notification invalid.
26. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, by placing reliance on Section 3C of the Act,
1956, vehemently contended that within 21 days from the
date of publication of the Notification under Section 3A (1)
of the Act, 1956, ‗any person interested in the land’ may
object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes
mentioned in that sub-section, and that such objection
shall be made to the competent authority, in writing, and it
shall ‗set out’ the grounds thereof, and thereafter, the
competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity
of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner,
and after making further enquiry, allow or disallow the
32
objections. Placing reliance on the said provision, he
contended that the aforesaid provision is mandatory and in
the absence of an opportunity of being heard and in the
absence of compliance thereof, the Notification issued by
the respondents would be invalid. He relied on a decision
in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & another v. Bimal Kumar
Shah & others,5 wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 29 and
30)
“29. The constitutional discourse on compulsory
acquisitions, has hitherto, rooted itself within the
―power of eminent domain‖. Even within that
articulation, the twin conditions of the acquisition
being for a public purpose and subjecting the
divestiture to the payment of compensation in lieu of
acquisition were mandated [State of Bihar v.
Kameshwar Singh, (1952) 1 SCC 528] . Although not
explicitly contained in Article 300-A, these twin
requirements have been read in and inferred as
necessary conditions for compulsory deprivation to
afford protection to the individuals who are being
divested of property [Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627; K.T.
Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9
SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] . A post-colonial
5
(2024) 10 SCC 533
33
reading of the Constitution cannot limit itself to
these components alone. The binary reading of the
constitutional right to property must give way to
more meaningful renditions, where the larger right to
property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-
rights, each with a distinct character but
interconnected to constitute the whole. These sub-
rights weave themselves into each other, and as a
consequence, State action or the legislation that
results in the deprivation of private property must be
measured against this constitutional net as a whole,
and not just one or many of its strands.
30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this
swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right
to property? Seven such sub-rights can be identified,
albeit non-exhaustive. These are:
(i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it
intends to acquire his property — the right to notice,
(ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the
acquisition — the right to be heard,
(iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its
decision to acquire — the right to a reasoned
decision,
(vi) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the
acquisition is for public purpose — the duty to
acquire only for public purpose,
34
(v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate
— the right of restitution or fair compensation,
(vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of
acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines
of the proceedings — the right to an efficient and
expeditious process, and
(vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading
to vesting — the right of conclusion.‖
27. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri
P.Veera Reddy appearing for NHAI contended that every
objection shall be made to the competent authority, in
writing, and shall set out grounds. He emphasized on the
term ‗shall set out grounds’. He has taken this Court to
the objections raised by the petitioners. This Court
perused the objections. All the objections that have been
raised are with regard to the rate of compensation that has
to be paid to the petitioners herein. No other grounds have
been set out in the objections. In respect of the said
objection relating to compensation, the competent authority
is not the person who has to decide with regard to
compensation. Further more, according to the respondent-
Competent Authority, objections under Section 3C of the
35
Act, 1956 were received after lapse/expiry of 21 days from
the date of publication of Section 3A Notification, and that
in their objections, the concern raised by the petitioners is
only in relation to rate of compensation for the acquisition
of the lands, whereby they sought open market value rate
for the lands acquired, and no objection has been raised
with regard to the validity of Section 3A Notification and to
the land acquisition thereunder. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid discussion, the contention of the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners with regard to non-consideration
of the objections, is not tenable.
28. The next contention argued by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the
provisions of the Act, 1956 would apply only if the land is
sought to be acquired for formation of a National Highway,
but, in the case on hand, land belonging to the petitioners
is not required for the purpose of formation of highway, but
it is the land between two interchange double trumpets,
and that the petitioners apprehend that the said land
would be used for commercial activity in future.
36
29. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel
appearing for NHAI submits that the lands of the
petitioners are sought to be acquired only for the purpose of
formation of National Highway, but not for carrying on
commercial activity. He further submits that the
contention that even if the lands of the petitioners are
between the double trumpet inter-change is assumed to be
true, then also they form part of Highway. Placing reliance
on the definition of ‗highway’ in the Control of National
Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002, the learned senior
counsel submits that the term ‗highway’ includes the lands
that are between the double trumpet interchange, which is
a part of highway, and acquisition of land for the said
purpose would also come for the purpose of National
Highway.
30. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the
definition of ‗highways’ under the provisions of the Control
of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002, which
reads thus:
37
―Section 2 (e) : Highway means a National Highway
declared as such under section 2 of the National
Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) and includes any
Expressway or Express Highway vested in the Central
Government, whether surfaced or unsurfaced, and also
includes-
(i) all lands appurtenant to the Highway, whether
demarcated or not, acquired for the purpose of the
Highway or transferred for such purpose by the State
Government to the Central Government;
(ii) all bridges, culverts, tunnels, causeways,
carriageways and other structures constructed on or
across such Highway; and
(iii) all trees, railings, fences, posts, paths, signs,
signals, kilometre stones and other Highway
accessories and materials on such Highway.‖There cannot be any dispute that once the land is not
utilized for the purpose of a highway, the provisions of the
Act, 1956 would not apply and the entire proceedings
initiated are without jurisdiction. By virtue of the aforesaid
definition, ‗highway’ includes all the lands appurtenant to
the highway, whether demarcated or not, and when once
the lands are acquired for the said purpose, it is deemed to
be used for the purpose of highway only. The entire plan
would be given by the Central Government. Admittedly, the
38entire project corridor is fully Access-Controlled Highway
and the double interchanges are proposed to facilitate
entry/exit of the vehicular traffic to/from the proposed
subject Green Field Corridor from/to the existing road
network. It is also evident that interchanges are designed
as per the codal provisions and existing field conditions and
are developed as Access Controlled keeping in view of the
road-user safety. It is categorically asserted in the counter
affidavit filed by 4th respondent-NHAI that the inside areas
of these interchanges is also being acquired to facilitate the
development of the National Highway. Therefore, the
apprehension of the petitioners that the subject lands are
being acquired for the purpose of establishment of
commercial activities in future, appears to be misconceived
and is not tenable.
31. The subject Green Field Express Highway from
75.000 KM to 199.00 KM from Kanampalli of Pulivendula to
Kavalakuntla of Porumamilla mandal, covers in 12 mandals
and 49 revenue villages with a distance of 124 KM in YSR
Kadapa district. It is settled principle that in cases of
39
acquisition of large parcels of land, the objections of a
minority of land holders, even if well founded, can be
ignored if the majority of the land holders accept the
acquisition proceedings. The ratio behind this principle is
that where a large extent of land is being acquired for
execution of a comprehensive project and the majority of
the land holders accept the scheme, it would not be
permissible to stall the entire scheme for the sake of a few
land holders. This is because the entire land is needed to
implement the object of the acquisition and deletion of a
small part of the land would render the scheme
unimplementable. Such a course of action should not be
taken, even if the objections of the minority of the land
holders are tenable and well founded. In the case on
hand, barring the petitioners herein, there is absolutely no
objection from any quarter.
32. As regards the scope of judicial review in such
matters involving land acquisition for public purposes, in
40
Union of India v. Kushala Shetty & others6, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held thus: (paragraph 28)
―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 the 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 development and
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 relative 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 the 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. In the
case in hand, neither has any violation of mandate of
6
(2011) 12 SCC 69
41
the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of
malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under
challenge cannot be sustained.‖
33. It is also pertinent to refer to a decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mazdoor Kisa Shakti Sangathan v.
Union of India & others7, wherein it is held thus:
―In the aforesaid context, it would be pertinent to point
out that there may be situations where conflict may
arise between two fundamental rights. Situation can
be conflict on inter-fundamental rights, intra-
fundamental rights, and in certain peculiar
circumstances, in respect of some person, one
fundamental right enjoyed by him may come in conflict
with the other fundamental right guaranteed to him.
In all such situations, the Court has to examine as to
where lies the larger public interest while balancing the
two conflicting rights. It is the paramount collective
interest which would ultimately prevail.‖It is settled proposition of law that collective interest
of the public at large prevails over the rights/interest of
some private individuals, and the Courts, in the ordinary
course, cannot interfere with regard to road alignments in
7
(2018) 17 SCC 324
42National Highways, and also technical nitty-gritties which
is the exclusive domain of technical experts.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
does not find any merits in the present Writ Petitions. The
Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs of the Writ Petitions.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ
Petitions shall stand closed.
(JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY)
DRK
24.2.2026
43
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
COMMON ORDER
IN
WRIT PETITION Nos.10084 of 2023, 14025 of 2023,
14414 of 2023 and 4510 of 2024
24.2.2026
DRK
