Telangana High Court
Kuthumbaka Naresh vs The Union Of India on 7 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 9109 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Kuthumbaka Naresh & others
..... Petitioners
And
The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners contend that the Union Government has
proposed a Greenfield Highway project from Nagpur in the State
of Maharashtra to Amaravathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh in
2019 and the said Highway, while proceeding towards
Vijayawada, is proposed to pass through Khammam Municipal
Corporation area, including V. Venkatayapalem village and
adjoining regions. Though respondents claim to have considered
three alternative alignments, the impugned alignment, namely
Option-1, which is closest to Khammam city, has been selected
arbitrarily, despite the existence of alternative alignments to the
East and extreme East, and the selected alignment intersects
the 100 feet Wyra Road, which is a major State Highway and a
principal road within Khammam city, passing through highly
2
commercial areas, Government offices and educational
institutions. The successive Gazette Notifications issued under
Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the
Act’), namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021, S.O. 3563(E)
dated 29.07.2022 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024, were
issued without complying with the mandatory requirement
under Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the brief
particulars of lands to be acquired, their extent and ownership
details were not furnished, thereby rendering the notifications
illegal and depriving the land losers of their right to raise
effective objections.
1.1. Petitioners further contend that the impugned
notification is the third in succession and that repeated
issuance of such notifications, without curing defects and
without adhering to statutory requirements, is impermissible in
law, particularly when earlier notifications have lapsed by efflux
of time. The land-losers in and around Khammam have been
agitating against the impugned alignment, and the District
Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to
the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Telangana, had categorically requested for change of alignment,
pointing out various factual and developmental aspects on
ground. The State Government had already planned a ring road
3
for Khammam city pursuant to G.O. Rt. No. 182 dated
18.04.2016 issued by the Transport, Roads and Buildings
Department, and had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 208 Crores
for land acquisition, and accordingly had acquired land in 2018
by paying compensation of Rs. 1 crore per acre for construction
of the Integrated District Collectorate.
1.2. Petitioners also contend that due to such
developments, the lands surrounding the Collectorate have
become highly commercial, and several residential colonies,
schools and colleges have come up within a 10 Km stretch of
the Khammam ring road, and despite such significant
developments, the respondents have fixed the impugned
alignment without knowledge or consultation with Khammam
Municipal Corporation, Roads and Buildings Department, Gram
Panchayats and other local bodies. The District Collector had
also brought to the notice of the respondents that the cost of
land acquisition under the impugned alignment would be
substantially higher in view of the development and
compensation already paid at Rs. 1 crore per acre, yet the said
representation was rejected by the respondents without
assigning cogent or detailed reasons.
1.3. Petitioners also contend that respondents have
deliberately withheld the names of land owners and particulars
4
of land in the notification, with an intention to conceal the
identity of influential persons whose lands are being benefited,
while small land owners are adversely affected, thereby acting in
a manner lacking transparency and fairness. In the absence of
necessary particulars as mandated under Section 3A(2), the
affected land owners are left without any meaningful
opportunity to raise objections, thereby violating the principles
of natural justice and rendering the entire process arbitrary.
Petitioners also contend that respondents indulged in
disinformation and misinformation, and have proceeded in
haste and secrecy to benefit certain influential persons,
disregarding the safety of human life and the property rights of
small land owners. The reply furnished by the 5th Respondent
under the Right to Information Act vide letter dated 08.02.2024
reveals that the alignment was proposed on 03.01.2019 and
approved by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, yet
all stakeholders including land losers, local authorities and the
general public were kept in the dark until issuance of
notification under Section 3A(1), which is contrary to statutory
requirements and established guidelines mandating prior
consultation.
1.4. Petitioners also contend that the Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Highways issued by
5
the Ministry of Environment and Forests mandates that road
alignment should avoid passing close to housing, schools and
hospitals in order to mitigate air pollution, and the impugned
alignment is in direct violation of such guidelines. The
impugned alignment passes within 500 meters of the District
Collectorate, where approximately 1500 employees work and an
equal number of public visit daily, and also near Harvest Public
School accommodating approximately 3000 students, and V.
Venkatayapalem Gram Panchayat with a population of about
6000, thereby exposing large populations to severe air pollution
hazards.
1.5. Petitioners also contend that Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidance Manual further prescribes development of
bypass roads to avoid alignment through noise sensitive areas,
and the impugned alignment, instead of providing a bypass,
passes through such sensitive zones including courts
functioning within the Collectorate, thereby violating prescribed
norms relating to noise pollution. The only viable solution in
such circumstances would be construction of a bypass road,
which the respondents have failed to consider, thereby acting in
disregard of environmental safeguards. Petitioners also contend
that the respondents have completely deviated from the
requirement of pre-application public consultation as mandated
6
under the Environmental Impact Assessment framework, and
have instead conducted selective and limited interactions with a
few individuals without proper public participation.
1.6. Petitioners further contend that despite continuous
agitations by affected land owners and social organizations for
nearly two years, the respondents have ignored such objections
and proceeded in a prejudiced manner. The post-environmental
clearance requirements including wide publicity of
Environmental Clearance Certificates as mandated for Category
“A” projects, have not been complied with, and no
advertisements or public disclosures have been made,
indicating clandestine conduct on the part of the respondents.
It is contended, Notification dated 26.02.2018 issued by the
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways mandates that
Greenfield Highway alignments should follow a crow-flight route
with minimal deviation and should avoid proximity to human
habitations, which has been completely ignored in the present
case.
1.7. Petitioners also contend that the impugned
alignment passes through V Venkatayapalem village, District
Collectorate, educational institutions and Khammam Municipal
Corporation area, and was fixed without consultation with local
authorities or stakeholders, contrary to prescribed guidelines.
7
The report of the DPR Consultant, namely ENVIRO INFRA
SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., recommending Option-1 is cryptic,
lacks detailed reasoning, and does not provide comparative data
between alternative options, thereby rendering the selection
arbitrary and perfunctory. The consultant has merely referred to
“some” or “more” felling of trees without providing quantitative
or qualitative analysis, and has failed to provide comparable
data for alternative routes, thereby vitiating the decision-making
process. The alternative alignment, namely Option-2, is
straighter, connects Suryapet to Vijayawada National Highway
at Kodad, and is approximately 100 km. shorter, thereby saving
substantial public expenditure, yet the respondents have
arbitrarily selected the longer and curved Option-1, which also
crosses river Muneru twice.
1.8. Petitioners also contend that such selection of
alignment is actuated by vested interests to benefit certain
persons in power. The reply dated 26.10.2021 furnished under
the Right to Information Act is cryptic and evasive, as it does
not disclose the relevant High Court order or details thereof,
thereby indicating deliberate suppression of information.
Respondents are bound to follow all statutory provisions, rules,
regulations and guidelines, and cannot claim immunity on the
ground of expertise in determining highway alignments. The
8
impugned notification is illegal for violation of Section 3A(2) of
the Act, irregular for violation of the Notification dated
26.02.2018, and contrary to Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines relating to air pollution, noise pollution and public
consultation. Respondents have unjustifiably ignored the
recommendations of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022,
and have failed to provide a bypass road for Khammam city,
despite providing such bypasses for smaller villages. It is
contended, respondents ought not to have selected Option-1,
which is closest to human habitations and institutions, and
ought to have selected Option-III or other alternatives to
minimize impact and reduce acquisition costs.
1.9. Petitioners also contend that respondents have
acted in haste and secrecy by publishing notifications in lesser-
known newspapers such as Hans India and Mana Telangana,
thereby limiting public awareness. The repeated issuance of
Section 3A(1) notifications after lapse of earlier notifications is
impermissible, and defeats the purpose of statutory time limits,
which are intended to prevent prolonged uncertainty and to
ensure consideration of ground realities. Due to such repeated
notifications and prolonged process since January 2019, the
land owners have been subjected to severe hardship,
uncertainty and mental agony for nearly five years. Petitioners
9
therefore, contend that the impugned notification is liable to be
quashed and appropriate directions be issued restraining the
respondents from proceeding further, and that interim
suspension of the notification dated 26.02.2024 is warranted
pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.
2. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the
allegations made by Petitioners that the impugned Notification
is in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidance Manual for Highways are incorrect and denied, and
submits that the impugned project has been processed strictly
in accordance with the statutory framework governing
environmental protection. Under clause (v) of sub-section (2) of
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central
Government is empowered to frame rules for carrying out the
purposes of the said Act, and in exercise of such powers, the
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification was initially
issued vide S.O. 60(E) dated 27.01.1994, mandating prior
environmental clearance for specified categories of projects
listed in Schedule-I. The said EIA Notification, 1994 was
subsequently amended on 07.07.2004 making Environmental
Impact Assessment a statutory requirement for certain
construction and development activities, and thereafter, a
comprehensive Notification bearing S.O. 1533(E) dated
10
14.09.2006 was issued, commonly referred to as the EIA
Notification, 2006, in supersession of the earlier notification.
2.1. Respondent No.2 further contends that as per the
provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, all new projects or
activities listed in the Schedule, including expansion or
modernization of existing projects crossing threshold limits, are
required to obtain prior Environmental Clearance either from
the Central Government or the State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA), as applicable. Under sub-section
(3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the
Central Government has constituted SEIAA in the States for the
purpose of granting environmental clearances in accordance
with the procedure laid down under the EIA Notification, 2006.
The Schedule to EIA Notification, 2006 specifically includes
highways under Entry 7(f), which mandates prior
Environmental Clearance for new National Highways and
expansion projects involving specified thresholds, thereby
bringing the present project within the ambit of mandatory
environmental clearance.
2.2. The subject stretch from Km 220.48 to Km 250.400
forms part of a larger project, namely construction of a four-lane
access controlled Greenfield Highway section of Khammam-
Vijayawada of length 89.429 Km from V. Venkatayapalem village
11
to Jakkampudi village (Design Chainage 220+480 to 309-909)
under the Other Economic Corridor in the States of Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh. In respect of the said project, an on line
application bearing proposal number IA/TG/NCP/215098/2021
dated 16.06.2021 was submitted by the Project Proponent,
namely the National Highways Authority of India, seeking
Environmental Clearance. Upon receipt of the said application,
the proposal was placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee
(EAC) in its meeting held on 12.07.2021, and thereafter, Terms
of Reference (ToR) were granted vide letter dated 26.07.2021 for
preparation of the EIA/EMP Report and for conducting public
hearing in consultation with the State Government.
2.3. Respondent No.2 further contends that pursuant
to the grant of Terms of Reference, the Project Proponent carried
out detailed Environmental Impact Assessment studies,
including preparation of the final EIA Report, which contained
details of the project, environmental baseline data, impact
assessment, mitigation measures and analysis of alternatives.
With regard to the allegation of Petitioners that selection of
Option-I alignment is actuated by vested interests, it is stated
the EIA Report contains a comparative analysis of three
alternative alignments, and after detailed evaluation of all
12
relevant environmental and social parameters, Option-I was
selected as the most feasible alignment.
2.4. Respondent No.2 further contends that the
comparative study undertaken by the Project Proponent, along
with maps and supporting data, demonstrated that Option-I
would have lesser impact on environmental and social
components as compared to the other alternatives, and the
same was duly considered by the competent authority. After
considering the EIA studies, recommendations of the Expert
Appraisal Committee and compliance with procedural
requirements under the EIA Notification, 2006, Environmental
Clearance for the project was granted vide letter dated
23.01.2023, subject to project-specific and general conditions.
2.5. Grant of Environmental Clearance was preceded by
a thorough evaluation of the project by the competent authority
established under the EIA Notification, 2006, and was issued
with a view to ensure environmental safeguards while
facilitating infrastructural development. Respondent No.2’s role
is confined to assessment of projects from the perspective of
environmental safeguards and grant or rejection of
Environmental Clearance, and issue of land acquisition
pursuant to the impugned Notification dated 26.02.2024 falls
outside its jurisdiction and lies within the domain of the
13
concerned authorities under the National Highways Act, 1956
and the State Government.
3. Respondents 3 to 5 also filed counter contending
that the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory
body constituted under an Act of Parliament and is responsible
for the development, maintenance and management of National
Highways and matters connected therewith. The project in
question forms part of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under
Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I, which has been undertaken
keeping in view national interest, regional development and
improvement of inter-State connectivity, and that the
Khammam-Vijayawada section of NH-163G is an integral part of
the said corridor. Due care has been taken while finalizing the
alignment, considering optimal and feasible alignment options
in view of prevailing developments, and efforts were made to
avoid existing habitations, settlements, water bodies and
religious. After conducting reconnaissance survey and detailed
deliberations, the present alignment was approved by the
competent authority. A meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under
the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Road Transport &
Highways), New Delhi, wherein various alignment options for
the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor as proposed by the DPR
14
Consultant were deliberated, and Option-I, being the present
alignment bypassing hills and forest sections, was approved.
3.1. Respondents 3 to 5 further contend that the Land
Acquisition Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting
held on 20.08.2020, deliberated upon the matter and accorded
approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial-
Vijayawada Corridor with a Right of Way of 45 meters. The
approved alignment does not obstruct or impede the proposed
Khammam Ring Road and that the State Government is free to
undertake the ring road project independently. Earlier
notifications issued under Section 3A of the Act had lapsed due
to various reasons, and therefore, a fresh notification bearing
S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024 was issued covering an extent of
25.52 hectares including lands in V. Venkatayapalem,
Vandanam and other villages, duly providing brief description of
land in compliance with Section 3A(2) of the Act. They also
contend that the format adopted for issuance of Section 3A
notification is standardized across the country and is uniformly
followed for all highway projects.
3.2. Respondents No. 3 to 5 further contend that
detailed particulars of land including names of land owners are
provided at the stage of Section 3D notification, and that at the
stage of Section 3A notification, only preliminary details are
15
provided based on available records without entering upon the
land. As per Section 3B of the Act, entry for survey is
permissible only after issuance of Section 3A notification, and
thereafter, joint measurement survey is conducted with revenue
authorities to ascertain exact details of land and ownership. The
District Collector, Khammam vide letter dated 17.05.2022, had
requested for change of alignment and the same was duly
considered and rejected by Respondent No.4 vide letter dated
13.06.2022, on the ground that change of alignment at that
stage was not feasible in view of the progress of land
acquisition, environmental clearance and other project-related
factors.
3.3. Respondents No.3 to 5 also contend that the State
Government, after considering all aspects, has accorded
concurrence to the proposed alignment vide letter dated
01.02.2024, which overrides the earlier proposal of the District
Collector. The project has been processed in accordance with
the ELA Notification, 2006 and Environmental Clearance has
been granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change vide EC Identification dated 23.01.2023 for
development of a four-lane access controlled Greenfield Highway
from V. Venkatayapalem village to Jakkampudi village covering
16
a length of 89.429 Km. The Terms of Reference for the project
were approved by the Ministry vide letter dated 26.07.2021.
3.4. Public hearings were conducted in accordance with
the approved Terms of Reference in Khammam District of
Telangana and Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh, presided
over by the respective Additional District Collectors and
Additional District Magistrates, in the presence of
environmental engineers, and the issues raised by the public
were duly addressed and incorporated in the Environmental
Management Plan. The details of Environmental Clearance and
public hearing were published in “The Hindu” and “Mana
Telangana” newspapers on 23.01.2023 and were also displayed
on notice boards of concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30
days. The Respondents No.3 to 5 further contend that the
District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022
addressed to the Member Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of
India, had conveyed that there would be no major impact on
forest and environment in Khammam District due to the project.
Land acquisition for the project is being carried out strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act,
1956 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, and compensation will be paid to
17
affected land owners as per the said Act. It is also contended,
the State Government has reiterated its concurrence to the
alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, pursuant to which fresh
Section 3A notification dated 26.02.2024 has been issued.
4. Petitioners filed reply contending that the present
Writ Petition is part of a batch of seven Writ Petitions, out of
which Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20359 of
2024 and 22802 of 2024 relate to a stretch of 29.92 Km from V.
Venkatayapalem village to Brahmanapalli village forming part of
the Khammam to Vijayawada section, situated on the southern
side of the Khammam District Collector’s office, and Writ
Petitions No. 14632 of 2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024
relate to a stretch of 16.67 Km from Tirdhala village to V.
Venkatayapalem Village forming part of the Warangal to
Khammam section on the northern side, both falling under the
jurisdiction of Khammam R.D.O., and separated by the 100 feet
Wyra Road passing in front of the District Collector’s office.
4.1. Petitioners also contend that both the aforesaid
stretches are interlinked and any change of alignment or
provision of bypass at V. Venkatayapalem near the District
Collector’s office would necessarily affect both stretches, and
therefore both segments are required to be considered and
resolved simultaneously. The claim of Respondents that due
18
care was taken to avoid human habitations, settlements, water
bodies and religious structures is wholly false and contrary to
ground realities. The impugned alignment passes through
approximately 725 house sites of 70 square yards each allotted
by the State Government to landless poor, out of which about
400 house sites are directly affected and the remaining are
likely to be rendered uninhabitable due to severe pollution
caused by the highway.
4.2. Petitioners further contend that the alignment
passes within approximately 200 feet of the District Collector’s
office, which houses several revenue courts and is a noise
sensitive zone, and that the said alignment was fixed without
consulting local authorities despite the District Collector’s letter
dated 17.05.2022 recommending change. Khammam Member of
Parliament had also addressed a letter dated 11.11.2022 to the
Union Transport Minister requesting shifting of the alignment
by at least 5 Km in view of local development plans. The
impugned alignment passes in close proximity to a newly
established Government Medical College situated about 120.
feet away, another colony consisting of about 500 house sites
situated about 420 feet away, and V. Venkatayapalem Gram
Panchayat having a population of approximately 5000 located
19
about 300 meters away, and further that Khammam Municipal
Corporation limits lie within less than one kilometre.
4.3. Due to the establishment of the District Collectorate
and declaration of ring road, thousands of house sites have
been formed and the town of Khammam has expanded by at
least 5 Km beyond the impugned alignment, and that the
alignment cuts through developed commercial and residential
areas. Respondents have kept the land owners under
continuous uncertainty for nearly six years since January 2019
by issuing successive notifications, thereby preventing
development of the area and causing severe hardship. The
impugned alignment passes through human habitations,
educational institutions and important public offices in violation
of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the
Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National
Highways. Petitioners further contend that the alignment passes
within approximately 400 feet of Khanapuram Haveli village and
that the applicable environmental guidelines mandate avoidance
of such habitations or provision of bypass roads. The alignment
from Warangal to Vijayawada is semi-circular and not in a crow-
flight path, thereby violating the guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways requiring straight
alignment with minimal deviation from habitations.
20
4.4. Section 3A(1) notifications were issued as early as
May, 2019 without conducting proper surveys, without public
consultation and even without obtaining Environmental
Clearance, thereby rendering the process illegal. The assertion
of the Respondents that alignment was finalized after due
deliberations is false and contrary to the chronology of events.
There is contradiction in the Respondents stand inasmuch as
the Land Acquisition Committee approval dated 20.08.2020 is
subsequent to issuance of Section 3A notifications starting from
17.05.2019. The Environmental Clearance Certificate dated
23.01.2023 contains incorrect and misleading data, including
incorrect statements that the area is predominantly agricultural
and uninhabited and that wheat is a major crop, whereas in
reality the entire Khammam Municipal Corporation area with a
population of approximately 5 lakhs lies within 10 Km radius.
Similar defects exist in the Environmental Clearance Certificate
dated 16.02.2023 for Warangal to Khammam stretch, which
also contains incorrect and generalized data and reflects non-
application of mind. The DPR Consultant report of ENVIRO
INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. is perfunctory, cryptic and
inconsistent with the timeline of notifications, and appears to be
a tailor-made report lacking proper analysis
21
4.5. Petitioners further contend that Respondents have
acted in haste and in a clandestine manner by issuing Section
3A notifications prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance and
without conducting mandatory consultations with State
Government and local bodies. The assertion that the impugned
alignment does not affect the Khammam ring road is incorrect,
as the proposed highway is elevated approximately 15 feet above
ground and would obstruct seamless development and
connectivity, effectively dividing the town. Alignment would
aggravate flooding conditions in Khammam, as it would act as a
barrier to natural flow of water near Wyra Road and
Collectorate, thereby causing waterlogging and marooning of
surrounding areas. Repeated issuance of Section 3A
notifications defeats the statutory purpose of limiting their
validity to one year, and that such repeated notifications
without fresh consultation and consideration of ground realities
are impermissible.
4.6. Petitioners further contend that Section 3A
notification is a crucial stage in acquisition proceedings and
failure to provide particulars of land as required under Section
3A(2) deprives land owners of meaningful opportunity to object,
thereby violating principles of natural justice. Rejection of the
District Collector’s recommendation dated 17.05.2022 vide
22
letter dated 13.06.2022 is arbitrary, biased and mala fide,
particularly when Environmental Clearance had not been
obtained at that stage. The subsequent concurrence of the State
Government dated 01.02.2024 is only a change of opinion due
to change in political regime and does not alter the factual
position on ground, and that the impugned alignment is
influenced by political and vested interests. Environmental
Clearance process was undertaken belatedly and in haste, and
that public hearings conducted thereafter do not cure the
illegality of prior actions.
4.7. Petitioners further contend that the project has
been artificially segmented into smaller stretches of 16.67 Km
and 29.92 Kim to circumvent the requirement of comprehensive
Environmental Clearance applicable to projects exceeding
threshold limits, which is impermissible in law. Segmentation of
projects to avoid environmental scrutiny has been held illegal by
judicial precedents, and that the present case squarely falls
within such prohibited practice. It is stated, Respondents have
failed to comply with the Manual of Land Acquisition for
National Highways, 2018 and Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines, which are essential governing norms
beyond the limited provisions of Sections 3A and 3D of the
National Highways Act, 1956.
23
4.8. Petitioners also contend that the width of the
impugned Greenfield Highway is fixed at 45 meters, which is
contrary to the prescribed minimum width of 60 meters,
rendering the project itself illegal. Respondents have issued
Section 3D notification dated 06.09.2024 in respect of certain
petitioners despite interim orders dated 09.07.2024 directing
maintenance of status quo, thereby acting in violation of orders
of this Court
5. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri
N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General, Sri Padma
Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.
6. The challenge in the present writ petition is directed
against the Gazette Notification bearing S.O. 909 (E) dated
26.02.2024 issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways
Act, 1956, in respect of acquisition of land for formation of NH-
163G for the stretch from Km 220.48 to Km 250.400 in
Khammam District. At the outset, it is necessary to note that
the National Highways Act, 1956 is a self-contained code
providing a complete statutory mechanism for acquisition of
land for National Highways. Section 3A contemplates issuance
of a preliminary notification expressing the intention of the
Central Government to acquire land, Section 3C provides for
24
filing of objections by interested persons and consideration
thereof by the competent authority, and Section 3D provides for
declaration acquisition upon such consideration.
7. It is also well-settled that a notification issued
under Section 3A(0) is only a preliminary step in the acquisition
process, the primary purpose of which is to invite objections
from interested persons, and the statute itself confers a specific
right upon such persons to submit objections before the
competent authority under Section 3C. In the present case,
Petitioners raised several contentions relating to alleged non-
compliance with Section 3A(2), improper alignment, violation of
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, absence of
adequate public consultation, alleged mala fides, impact on
habitations and feasibility of alternative alignments.
8. However, a careful examination of the nature of the
contentions reveals that the issues raised by Petitioners are
predominantly factual and technical in nature, requiring
detailed examination of alignment studies, environmental
reports, comparative feasibility of alternatives, ground realities
and expert material. Such issues, by their very nature,
necessitate appreciation of evidence, examination of technical
data and evaluation of competing considerations, which fall
squarely within the domain of the competent authority
25
designated under the statute. Further, the contention relating
to alleged non-disclosure of particulars under Section 3A(2),
adequacy of description of lands, and the consequential inability
to raise objections, are also matters which can be effectively
urged before the competent authority under Section 3C, which
is empowered to consider all objections and pass appropriate
orders.
9. This Court also takes note of the stand of the
Respondents that Environmental Clearance has been granted
after following the procedure prescribed under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification, 2006, and that
alignment has been finalized after consideration of alternative
options. Whether such procedures have been strictly complied
with, whether the Environmental Clearance suffers from any
infirmity, and whether the alignment is in conformity with
applicable guidelines are all questions which involve disputed
facts and technical evaluation and are not amenable to
adjudication in writ jurisdiction at this preliminary stage.
10. It is trite law that in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not ordinarily
undertake adjudication of disputed questions of fact,
particularly in matters involving technical expertise and policy
decisions, unless there is a clear case of patent illegality or lack
26
of jurisdiction. In the present case, no such exceptional
circumstance is made out warranting interference at the stage
of Section 3A notification, especially when the statute itself
provides an efficacious remedy for redressal of grievances.
11. It is also a settled principle of law that when a
statute provides a complete machinery for redressal of
grievances, the aggrieved party must ordinarily exhaust such
statutory remedy before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court, unless there are compelling reasons to bypass the
same. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioners have
an effective and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 3C
of the Act to raise all their objections, including those relating to
alignment, environmental concerns, procedural irregularities
and violation of statutory provisions. The competent authority,
upon receipt of such objections, is under a statutory obligation
to consider the same and pass a reasoned order, and therefore
the Petitioners cannot be said to be without remedy.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the writ petition is premature and not
maintainable at this stage, as the Petitioners have not
exhausted the statutory remedy available to them under the
Act.
27
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving
it open to Petitioners to avail the statutory remedy by filing
appropriate objections before the competent authority under
Section 3C of the Act within the time permissible in law. It is
made clear that if such objections are filed, the competent
authority shall consider the same strictly in accordance with
law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners,
and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all
the contentions raised. It is further observed that all
contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged
before the competent authority, and no opinion is expressed by
this Court on the merits of the case. No costs.
14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
