Telangana High Court
Muvva Jyothi 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. 22802 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Muvva Jyothi & others
..... Petitioners
And
The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
The case of petitioners is that they are the absolute
owners and possessors of various extents of lands situated at V.
Venkatayapalem, Khammam District, comprising specific survey
numbers and plot numbers, details of which are as follows:
(1) Muvva Jyothi, W/o Nagaeswara Rao, aged 50
years, land in Sy.No. 246/El, Plot Nos. 15 and 16 admeasuring
424.00 square yards; (2) Kadiyala Venkateswarlu, C/o
Buchaiah, aged 68 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot Nos. 66
and 67 admeasuring 440.00 square yards; (3) Chava Rama
Linga Vara Prasad, S/o Narsaiah, aged 69 years, land in Sy.Nos.
253/A and 254/A, Plot No. 1 admeasuring 1200.00 square
yards; (4) Regalla Raja Reddy, C/o Regalla Ranga Reddy, aged
about 55 years, land in Sy.No. 248/E, Plot Nos. 119 and 120
2
admeasuring 330.00 square yards; (5) Sayed Shahira, W/o
Sadhik, aged 35 years, land in Sy.Nos. 248/E1, 251/A1,
248/E2, 251/A2 and 251/A3, Plot No. 21 admeasuring 240.00
square yards; (6) Mohammad Fouzia Parveen, W/o Apsar, aged
54 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot Nos. 35, 36, 69 and 70,
each admeasuring 220.00 square yards, totalling 880.00 square
yards; (7) Alla Rama Rao, S/o Narayana, aged 67 years, land in
Sy.No. 253/A, Plot No. 17 admeasuring 220.00 square yards; (8)
Lakkineni Satyanarayana, S/o Kishaiah, aged 70 years, land in
Sy.No. 253/A, Plot No. 21 admeasuring 220.00 square yards; (9)
Vadlamudi Vijay, S/o Rama Rao, aged 35 years, land in Sy No.
253/A, Plot No. 65 admeasuring 220.00 square yards, and (10)
Macha Ramesh, C/o Chalamaiah, aged 56 years, land in Sy.No.
248/A, Plot No. 165 admeasuring 201.00 square yards.
1.1 Petitioners further contend that the impugned
Greenfield Highway alignment forms part of Nagpur to
Vijayawada NH-163G corridor and that the said alignment was
approved by the National Highways Authority of India on
03.01.2019 and thereafter, by the Land Acquisition Committee
on 20.08.2020, and since then successive notifications under
Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the
Act’) have been issued, culminating in the present impugned
Gazette Notification No. S.O. 909 (E), dated 26.02.2024.
3
1.2. It is stated, petitioners have been subjected to
continuous uncertainty, hardship and mental agony for nearly
six years commencing from the first notification dated
03.01.2019 till the issuance of the impugned notification dated
26.02.2024, thereby causing grave prejudice to their property
rights and preventing any meaningful utilization or development
of their lands. The District Collector, Khammam, by the letter
dated 17.05.2022 addressed through the Chief Secretary to the
concerned authorities, specifically pointed out that the
impugned alignment was finalized without consultation with
local authorities including Khammam Municipality, Roads and
Buildings Department and Gram Panchayats, and further
highlighted that the State Government had paid Rs.1 Crore per
acre in 2018 for construction of the new Collectorate, thereby
indicating that cost of acquisition under the impugned
alignment would be exorbitantly high, and also brought to the
notice that the State Government had already planned a ring
road for Khammam and sanctioned Rs.200 crores for land
acquisition.
1.3. Petitioners further contend that the Member of
Parliament, Khammam Parliamentary Constituency, Sri Nama
Nageswara Rao, by letter dated 11.11.2022 addressed to the
Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, requested
4
that impugned alignment be shifted by at least five kilometers in
view of the State Government’s master plan for development of
Khammam and the proposed ring road. Several similarly-
situated land losers have approached this Court in Writ
Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 20359 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 14632
of 2024 and 20308 of 2024 and this Court granted interim
orders in those matters. It is also stated, the Environmental
Clearance Certificate bearing No. EC23A034TG132431 dated
23.01.2023 was obtained only subsequently, whereas the
respondents had issued notifications under Sections 3A and 3D
of the 1956 Act right from 2019 onwards without obtaining prior
Environmental Clearance, which renders the entire process
illegal.
1.4. Petitioners further contend that the Environmental
Clearance was sought pursuant to proposal number
IA/TG/NCP/215098/2021 dated 17.05.2022 and Terms of
Reference dated 26.07.2021, and public hearing was conducted
on 15.03.2022 at Khammam, which clearly demonstrates that
the statutory process of environmental clearance was
undertaken much after initiation of acquisition proceedings.
Several Gram Panchayats have passed resolutions opposing the
impugned alignment and that several public representatives
have stated that they were not informed about the
5
Environmental Clearance process, thereby establishing lack of
proper public consultation. It is contended, the impugned
notification dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 3A(1) of the
Act is in violation of Section 3A(2) inasmuch as it fails to provide
proper and meaningful particulars of the lands proposed to be
acquired and instead provides vague and misleading details,
thereby depriving the Petitioners of an effective opportunity to
file objections.
1.5. Respondents deliberately published the impugned
notification in newspapers such as Hans India and Mana
Telangana, which have very limited circulation in the affected
area, with an intention to avoid effective notice to the affected
land owners. Respondents issued notifications under Sections
3A and 3D in various stretches from Warangal to Khammam
and Khammam to Vijayawada without obtaining Environmental
Clearance from the competent authority from 2019 onwards,
which is in clear violation of law. Though the Environmental
Clearance Certificate for Khammam to Vijayawada stretch was
obtained only on 23.01.2023, several notifications under
Sections 3A and 3D had already been issued prior thereto,
thereby rendering the entire alignment illegal and ex facie mala
fide. The impugned notification is in derogation of the Manual
of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under
6
the 1956 Act, particularly with regard to assessment of cost of
acquisition, inasmuch as no proper assessment was made
despite the District Collector having specifically indicated that
the land value was about Rs.1 Crore per acre.
1.6. Respondents violated the guidelines relating to
segmentation of project length, inasmuch as the project has
been deliberately bifurcated into stretches less than 30
kilometers, namely 29.92 kilometers and 16.6 kilometers,
within the jurisdiction of the same Revenue Divisional Officer,
Khammam, with an intention to circumvent statutory
requirements and avoid comprehensive environmental scrutiny.
Such segmentation is contrary to the guidelines which mandate
issuance of composite notifications within one jurisdiction and
also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court prohibiting segmentation as a strategy to avoid
environmental clearance requirements. The impugned
alignment violates the prescribed norms relating to width of
Greenfield Highways, inasmuch as the proposed width is only
45 meters, whereas the minimum required right of way is 60
meters for such highways.
1.7. It is contended, the impugned alignment does not
adhere to the principle of crow-flight route and instead takes a
circuitous path by moving towards the eastern side of
7
Khammam and unnecessarily crossing the Muneru river,
thereby increasing the length and cost of the project. The
impugned alignment passes in close proximity to sensitive and
densely populated areas including the District Collector’s office,
Government Medical College, Harvest Public School, V.
Venkatayapalem village and several residential colonies, which
is in clear violation of Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines. The impugned project was wrongly categorized as a
Category “B” project instead of Category “A”, despite covering
multiple states and exceeding the prescribed thresholds,
thereby avoiding mandatory wider public consultation and
scrutiny.
1.8. It is also contended, respondents have acted in
haste and in a clandestine manner by issuing notifications
without proper consultation with local authorities, public
representatives and affected land owners and without adhering
to mandatory procedural safeguards. Petitioners further
contend that the respondents have not provided proper
particulars in the notification, have failed to conduct meaningful
public consultations, and have ignored objections raised by
local bodies and Gram Panchayats. The action of respondents
are mala fide and arbitrary, including alleged favouring of
certain influential interests and failure to consider alternative
8
alignments objectively. The DPR consultant report submitted by
Mis Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in November 2021 is
perfunctory, inconsistent with actual ground realities, and
based on incorrect data, including baseline studies conducted
only between April 2021 and June 2021, whereas notifications
had already been issued earlier. Petitioners further contend that
the respondents failed to consult the District Collector and other
local authorities while finalizing the alignment and ignored
relevant factors such as habitation, environmental impact and
development plans. Respondents acted in violation of statutory
guidelines, including Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines, 2006 and the Manual of Guidelines on Land
Acquisition for National Highways, which have statutory force.
1.9. Petitioners further contend that despite interim
orders granted by this Court on 21.08.2024 directing
maintenance of status quo, respondents continued to proceed
with the project, and the said interim orders were subsequently
vacated on 13.03.2025, against which Writ Appeal No. 397 of
2025 was filed and disposed of granting liberty to seek
appropriate relief. It is also contended vacation of interim
orders was based on withdrawal of objections by the Revenue
Department and not on merits of the case, and that all other
grounds raised by the Petitioners continue to subsist. If further
9
steps are permitted pursuant to the impugned notification, the
writ petition itself would become infructuous and Petitioners
would suffer grave and irreparable loss. The impugned action
violates their valuable constitutional rights under Article 300A
and Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of natural
justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned Notification is liable to be declared illegal, arbitrary
and mala fide and consequently liable to be quashed.
2. Respondents 3 to 5 filed counter contending that
Respondent No. 3 is the National Highways Authority of India, a
statutory authority constituted under an Act of Parliament,
entrusted with the responsibility of development, maintenance
and management of National Highways and matters incidental
thereto, and is discharging its functions in accordance with the
statutory mandate and policy decisions of the Central
Government. It is contended, the project in question, namely
the development of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor including
the Khammam-Vijayawada Section of NH-163G, has been
undertaken in the larger national interest under Bharatmala
Pariyojana Phase-I with the objective of improving inter-State
connectivity, facilitating economic growth and strengthening
infrastructure. While finalizing the alignment, due care and
diligence were exercised by the competent authorities by
10
considering optimal and feasible alignment options in the light
of prevailing ground conditions and developments, and that
specific efforts were made to minimize impact on existing
habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures.
2.1. Respondents further contend that the alignment
was finalized only after conducting reconnaissance surveys and
detailed deliberations by expert agencies and thereafter
approved by the competent authority in accordance with
established procedure. A high-level meeting was held on
03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, wherein various
alignment options proposed by the DPR Consultant for the
Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor were examined, and the present
alignment (Option-1) which bypasses hilly and forest areas, was
approved as the most suitable option. The Land Acquisition
Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting held on
20.08.2020, further deliberated upon the alignment and
accorded approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial-
Vijayawada Corridor with a right of way of 45 meters.
2.2. Respondents contend that earlier notifications
issued under Section 3A of the Act had lapsed due to passage
of time and other administrative reasons, and therefore a fresh
notification vide Gazette Notification No. S.O. 909 (E) dated
11
26.02.2024 was issued covering an extent of 25.52 hectares,
including lands in V. Venkatayapalem, Vandanam and other
villages, by providing brief particulars as required under Section
3A(2) of the Act. The format of publication of Section 3A
notification is standardized and uniformly followed across all
projects in the country, and that detailed particulars such as
survey-wise measurements and names of landowners are
provided only at the stage of Section 3D notification after
completion of statutory survey procedures. Under the statutory
scheme of the 1956 Act, the Authority is empowered under
Section 3B to enter upon the land for the purpose of survey only
after issuance of Section 3A notification, and thereafter, upon
conducting joint measurement surveys with the revenue
authorities, exact details of affected lands and interested
persons are ascertained.
2.3. Respondents contend that the request made by the
District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022
seeking change of alignment was duly considered at the
appropriate level, and the same was rejected by Respondent No.
4 vide letter dated 13.06.2022 on the ground that any change
in alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the
progress of land acquisition, environmental clearance and other
technical and administrative constraints. The Government of
12
Telangana, after due consideration, conveyed its concurrence to
the finalized alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, thereby
affirming the decision taken by the competent authorities.
Environmental Clearance for the project has been duly obtained
in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification, 2006, and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change granted Environmental Clearance bearing
identification No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023 for the
development of a 4-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway
from V. Venkatayapalem village to Jakkampudi village (NH-16),
covering a length of 89.429 kilometers from design chainage
220.480 to 309.909.
2.4. Respondents contend that prior to grant of
Environmental Clearance, the Terms of Reference for the project
were approved by the Ministry vide letter dated 26.07.2021, and
all requisite studies and assessments were conducted in
accordance with such Terms of Reference. In compliance with
the statutory requirements, public hearings were conducted in
the project areas including Khammam District in the State of
Telangana and Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh,
under the supervision of the respective Additional District
Collectors and Additional District Magistrates, in the presence of
Environmental Engineers, and that the issues raised by the
13
public during such hearings were duly considered and
incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan. It is
stated, the details of the Environmental Clearance and the
outcome of public hearings were duly published in widely
circulated newspapers including “The Hindu” and “Mana
Telangana” on 23.01.2023 and were also displayed on the notice
boards of the concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30 days to
ensure public awareness.
2.5. These Respondents contend that the District
Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to
the Member Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, Government of India, had specifically conveyed
that the project would not have any major adverse impact on
forest and environmental aspects in Khammam District. The
land acquisition for the project is being undertaken strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
and that all affected landowners are entitled to compensation
and other benefits in accordance with the said statutory
framework. The allegations made by the Petitioners are
unfounded, incorrect and misleading, and that the Petitioners
have failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions or
14
procedural irregularity in the process undertaken by the
Respondents.
2.6. Respondents further contend that the project is of
significant public importance and any interference at this stage
would adversely affect infrastructure development and larger
public interest. Petitioners have an effective statutory remedy
available under Section 3C of the Act to submit objections
before the competent authority, and without availing such
remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The writ
petition is premature in nature as the acquisition proceedings
are still at an intermediate stage and no declaration under
Section 3D of the Act has been issued.
3. Petitioners filed a reply contending that the present
writ petition forms part of a group of seven writ petitions, out of
which Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20659 of
2024 and 22802 of 2024 pertain to one stretch from V.
Venkatayapalem (V) to Brahmana Palli (V) covering 29.92
kilometers forming part of the Khammam to Vijayawada section,
situated on the southern side of the Khammam District
Collector’s office. The remaining Writ Petitions No. 14632 of
2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024 pertain to another
stretch from Tirdhala (V) to V. Venkatayapalem (V) covering
16.67 kilometers forming part of the Warangal to Khammam
15
section, situated on the northern side of the Collector’s office,
and both these stretches fall within the jurisdiction of the same
Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, thereby clearly
indicating deliberate segmentation of the project. Both the
aforesaid stretches are intrinsically interconnected, inasmuch
as any change in alignment near the Khammam District
Collector’s office at V. Venkatayapalem or provision of a bypass
road would necessarily affect both stretches simultaneously,
and therefore the issue ought to be considered holistically
rather than in a fragmented manner.
3.1. Petitioners contend that the averments of the
Respondents that due care was taken while fixing the alignment
are wholly false and contrary to ground realities, and that in
fact the impugned alignment passes through 725 house sites of
70 square yards each allotted by the State Government to
landless poor persons, out of which about 400 house sites are
directly affected and the remaining are also likely to be
adversely impacted due to pollution and proximity to the
highway. The alignment passes in extremely close proximity to
sensitive and critical public infrastructure, including Khammam
District Collector’s office, which houses several revenue courts
and is a noise-sensitive zone, being situated at a distance of
approximately 200 feet from the proposed alignment, and that
16
this aspect was specifically highlighted by the District Collector
in his letter dated 17.05.2022. The impugned alignment also
passes near important establishments including the
Government Medical College located at a distance of about 120
feet, a colony of landless poor consisting of approximately 500
house sites situated about 420 feet away, and V.
Venkatayapalem village having a population of about 5000
persons situated at a distance of about 300 meters, and further
that the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation are within
less than one kilometer from the alignment.
3.2. Petitioners further contend that due to the
establishment of the new District Collectorate, the proposed ring
road and other developmental activities, several thousands of
residential plots and constructions have come up in the area,
and the impugned alignment passes through such developed
and developing areas, contrary to the Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land
Acquisition. The alignment also passes in close proximity, at
about 400 feet distance, to Khanapuram Haveli village, thereby
violating the requirement under Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines to avoid human habitations and noise-
sensitive areas. The alignment is not in accordance with the
principle of crow-flight route and is instead semi-circular and
17
circuitous in nature, which is contrary to the guidelines issued
under Circular No. NH-15017/21/2018 by the Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways, which mandate that highways should
follow a straight-line alignment avoiding unnecessary deviation.
3.3. Petitioners contend that the Notifications under
Section 3A(1) of the Act were issued without conducting proper
surveys, without undertaking public consultations and without
obtaining prior Environmental Clearance, as is evident from the
dates mentioned in the Environmental Clearance certificates.
There is a clear contradiction in the stand of the Respondents,
inasmuch as while the Land Acquisition Committee is stated to
have approved the alignment on 20.08.2020, notifications under
Section 3A(1) were issued as early as 17.05.2019 vide S.O. No.
1914 (E), thereby demonstrating procedural irregularity. The
Environmental Clearance Certificate No. EC23A054TG132431
dated 23.01.2023 for the Khammam to Vijayawada stretch itself
indicates that the proposal was submitted only on 17.05.2022,
the Terms of Reference were granted on 26.07.2021, and the
public hearing was conducted on 15.03.2022, thereby clearly
establishing that the acquisition process commenced much
prior to compliance with environmental requirements.
3.4. Petitioners also contend that the Environmental
Clearance certificates contain incorrect, generalized and
18
misleading statements, including the assertion that the area is
predominantly agricultural and uninhabited and that wheat is a
major crop, which is factually incorrect, as the entire Khammam
Municipal Corporation area with a population of about five lakh
lies within a radius of 10 kilometers. The DPR consultant,
namely M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its report dated
November 2021, has stated that baseline environmental studies
were conducted only during April 2021 to June 2021, which
contradicts the issuance of notifications prior to such studies
and demonstrates that the process was undertaken in a
perfunctory and pre-determined manner. Separate
Environmental Clearance Certificates were obtained for
Warangal to Khammam stretch (EC No. EC23A034TG157248
dated 16.02.2023) and Khammam to Vijayawada stretch (EC
No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023), thereby evidencing
artificial segmentation of the project to avoid stricter scrutiny.
It is also contended, public hearings for environmental
clearance were conducted only in March 2022 and February
2023, long after issuance of notifications, thereby rendering the
entire process belated and contrary to law.
3.5. Petitioners contend that the respondents have failed
to consult local authorities, revenue officials, municipal bodies
and stakeholders prior to issuance of Section 3A notification,
19
which is a mandatory requirement under the applicable
guidelines. Respondents’ assertion that the impugned alignment
does not interfere with the proposed ring road is incorrect, as
the highway, being elevated at about 15 feet, would physically
divide Khammam town and obstruct seamless urban
development, and construction of underpasses or flyovers would
require approval of the Union Government. The impugned
alignment would adversely affect drainage patterns and could
lead to flooding, as evidenced by recent rains which have
already caused inundation in parts of Khammam, and the
proposed highway may act as a barrier similar to a tank bund
obstructing natural flow of water.
3.6. Petitioners further contend that repeated issuance
of Section 3A notifications after lapse of earlier notifications
defeats the purpose of statutory timelines and is an abuse of
process, and that the respondents cannot issue successive
notifications without undertaking fresh consultations and
addressing earlier objections. Section 3A notification is a crucial
stage in the acquisition process and must contain sufficient
particulars of the land, and that failure to provide such
particulars deprives the affected persons of a meaningful
opportunity to file objections, thereby violating principles of
natural justice and Section 3A(2) of the Act.
20
3.7. Rejection of the District Collector’s request dated
17.05.2022 for change of alignment vide letter dated 13.06.2022
is arbitrary and mala fide, as no substantial steps had been
taken at that time and even Environmental Clearance had not
been obtained. The concurrence given by the State Government
vide letter dated 01.02.2024 does not cure the earlier illegality,
and that the change in stance is due to political considerations
and not based on objective assessment of facts. Respondents
failed to adhere to the Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines, 2006 and the Manual of Guidelines on Land
Acquisition for National Highways, 2018, which have statutory
force, and that reliance solely on the National Highways Act,
1956 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is insufficient. Petitioners
contend that the impugned alignment is illegal even on the
ground that the width of the Greenfield Highway is proposed as
45 meters instead of the minimum required 60 meters.
3.8. Petitioners contend that the DPR report
recommending Option-1 alignment is arbitrary, cryptic and not
based on proper comparative analysis, and that alternative
alignments were not objectively evaluated, and the report
appears to be a tailor-made exercise. The entire process suffers
from mala fides, colourable exercise of power and violation of
statutory provisions, including deliberate segmentation of the
21
project to avoid environmental clearance requirements, as held
impermissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2866-2880 of 2011 (Union
of India vs. Kushala Shetty), interference by the Court is
warranted in cases where the acquisition is ex facie contrary to
law or vitiated by mala fides, both of which are present in the
instant case.
4. Heard 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, learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and
General Administration.
5. This Court, at the outset, finds that there is no
dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned Gazette
Notification has been issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act,
notifying the intention of the Central Government to acquire
certain lands for the purpose of formation of the Greenfield
Highway NH-163G. The scheme of the National Highways Act,
1956, in so far as acquisition of land is concerned, is a self-
contained code which prescribes a sequential and structured
procedure beginning with issuance of a preliminary notification
under Section 3A(1), followed by inviting objections from
22
interested persons under Section 3C, and culminating in a
declaration under Section 3D, upon consideration of such
objections. Issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) is only a
preliminary step which indicates the intention of the
Government to acquire the land and does not, by itself,
determine any rights conclusively, and that the statute
specifically provides an opportunity to the affected landowners
to file their objections under Section 3C within the prescribed
time.
6. It is to be noted, the contentions raised by
Petitioners primarily relate to the legality and propriety of the
alignment, alleged violations of Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines, alleged mala fides in the decision-
making process, non-compliance with statutory guidelines, and
other procedural irregularities. Such contentions, by their very
nature, involve examination of factual aspects including location
of alignment, impact on habitations. Compliance with
environmental norms, adequacy of particulars in the
notification, and other technical considerations, which
necessarily require detailed factual inquiry and evaluation by
the competent authority.
7. The National Highways Act, 1956 expressly provides
a mechanism under Section 3C whereby any person interested
23
in the land notified under Section 3A(1) may file objections to
the use of such land for the purpose mentioned in the
notification, and the competent authority is mandated to give an
opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order thereon. The
specific stand of Respondents that the acquisition proceedings
are presently at the stage of Section 3A notification and that no
declaration under Section 3D has been issued, thereby
indicating that the statutory process is still in progress and has
not attained finality.
8. When a statute provides a complete and efficacious
machinery for redressal of grievances, including an opportunity
of hearing and adjudication by a competent authority, the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily
not to be invoked at an intermediate stage, unless exceptional
circumstances are made out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
consistently held that in matters of land acquisition under
special enactments, interference by the writ Court at a
preliminary stage is not warranted when the aggrieved party has
an effective alternative statutory remedy, and that the Court
should be slow in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in
such cases. This Court further observes that the issue relating
to fixation of alignment of National Highways involves highly
technical, economic and infrastructural considerations, which
24
fall within the domain of expert bodies such as the National
Highways Authority of India. It is well-settled that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held
that such matters, particularly relating to highway alignment
and infrastructure planning, are not ordinarily amenable to
judicial review under Article 226 unless there is a clear case of
mala fides or violation of statutory provisions. The Court, in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over the
decisions taken by expert bodies in technical matters.
9. Petitioners have an effective and adequate statutory
remedy under Section 3C of the Act to raise all objections
including those relating to alignment, environmental concerns,
alleged violations of guidelines, and adequacy of particulars in
the notification, before the competent authority. The issues
raised by Petitioners, including allegations of mala fides,
improper alignment, non-compliance with guidelines and
environmental norms, are mixed questions of fact and law
which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present writ
proceedings without a detailed factual inquiry, which is more
appropriately undertaken by the statutory authority in the first
instance. Entertaining the writ petition at this stage, without
requiring Petitioners to avail the statutory remedy, would
amount to short-circuiting the procedure prescribed under the
25
Act and bypassing the mechanism specifically designed by the
legislature.
10. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that judicial
discipline and settled principles governing exercise of writ
jurisdiction require that the Petitioners be relegated to the
statutory remedy available under the Act, particularly when no
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been
demonstrated warranting interference at this stage. Adequacy or
otherwise of the particulars mentioned in Section 3A
notification, validity of alignment, and the alleged violations of
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and other
manuals are all matters which can be effectively raised before
and considered by the competent authority under Section 3C.
This Court is thus satisfied that Writ Petition, at this stage, is
premature and entertaining the same would result in
interference with an ongoing statutory process, which is neither
warranted nor justified. Petitioners ought to have availed the
said statutory remedy by submitting their objections, raising all
grounds urged in the present writ petition including those
relating to alignment, alleged violations of statutory provisions,
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, and other
contentions, before the competent authority in accordance with
law.
26
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of,
leaving it open to Petitioners to file appropriate objections under
Section 3C of the Act within the time as may be permissible in
law, and seek redressal of their grievances before the competent
authority. If such objections are filed, the competent authority
shall consider the same objectively, afford reasonable
opportunity of hearing to Petitioners, and pass a reasoned order
strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions
raised by either party, and all issues are left open to be
adjudicated by the competent authority. No costs.
12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
