Telangana High Court
Veginati Kishore 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. 14632 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Veginati Kishore & 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 the National
Highways Authority of India has planned the Greenfield
Highway NH-163G from Nagpur in Maharashtra to Vijayawada
in Andhra Pradesh, which is a Category “A” project as per the
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. The said
highway passes from Warangal to Khanımam to Vijayawada and
the impugned alignment was approved on 03.01.2019 by NHAI
and subsequently, approved by the Land Acquisition Committee
on 20.08.2020, as reflected in the letter dated 08.02.2024
issued by the NHAI Project Implementation Unit-1, Khammam.
The project appears to have been conceived much earlier and
yet the process has been undertaken in a manner detrimental to
public interest.
2
1.1. Petitioners further contend that the alignment
crosses Wyra Road on the eastern side of Khammam city and
successive notifications under Section 3 of the National
Highways Act, 1956, namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021,
S.Q. 3563(E) dated 29.07.2022, S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022,
S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024,
along with several others, were issued in unknown newspapers
without furnishing particulars of land owners and the extent of
land proposed to be acquired as mandated under Section 3A(2)
of the Act. The impugned alignment is unnecessarily circuitous
inasmuch as, to reach Vijayawada from Warangal, the highway
need not cross Khammam city or intersect Wyra Road on the
eastern side, and instead could have been aligned on the
western side of Khammam in a straight line or alternatively
routed via Suryapet to Vijayawada National Highway without
crossing river Muneru. The longer alignment has been
deliberately adopted to benefit certain influential persons
holding large extents of land, resulting in loss of thousands of
crores of rupees to the public exchequer and adversely affecting
the lives and properties of the local population.
1.2. Petitioners further contend that Notification No.
S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of
the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) and the
3
consequential Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023
issued under Section 3D(1) in respect of the stretch from Km
203.8 to Km 220.48 are mutually contradictory, as the villages
and survey numbers mentioned therein do not correspond with
each other. The Petitioners specifically contend that V.
Venkatayapalem village is mentioned in Notification S.O.
4407(E) but does not find place in Notification S.O. 3928,
thereby rendering both notifications liable to be set aside.
1.3. The impugned alignment at V. Venkatayapalem
Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District has
been finalized in total violation of the Act, the Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, and the guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Respondents had
identified three alternative alignments, namely (a) abutting
Khammam Municipal Corporation on the east, (b) further east
to Khammam, and (c) still further east to option (b), but
deliberately selected alignment “A” with mala fide intention to
benefit certain politicians, disregarding statutory provisions, the
letter of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022, and the health
and financial safety of the Petitioners. Petitioners assert that the
entire exercise of fixing the alignment from Warangal to
Khammam is illegal, mala fide and futile.
4
1.4. Petitioners further contend that there has been
complete disregard of public concerns and stakeholder
participation. The Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, Shri Nama
Nageswara Rao, addressed a letter to the Union Road Transport
Minister requesting that the alignment be shifted by 5
kilometers away from Khammam town, highlighting several
critical issues. As per the EIA Guidelines, particularly
paragraph 7.3 at page 29, the project proponent is required to
address all environmental concerns raised during public
consultation and make appropriate changes in the draft EIA and
EMP, but in the present case no meaningful consultation with
stakeholders was conducted. Stakeholders including the general
public, environmentalists, social workers, educated persons,
local bodies, government employees and land losers were not
consulted at all. It is contended that several Gram Panchayats
adjacent to Khammam city passed resolutions opposing the
impugned alignment and issued letters stating that they had no
knowledge of the Environmental Clearance obtained by NHAI.
During the environmental public hearing, all 15 speakers
opposed the alignment, 79 written representations were
submitted, and the participants raised slogans against the
alignment. The stakeholders have been agitating against the
impugned alignment for the past two years through a Joint
5
Action Committee and raised concerns that the highway is not
beneficial to the local public, passes through valuable
commercial plots, poses danger to health due to pollution,
hampers local development plans and affects government
offices, educational institutions and human habitations.
1.5. Petitioners further contend that the District
Collector, Khammam, through letter dated 17.05.2022
addressed to the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Telangana, highlighted several issues and
recommended change of alignment. Despite the said
recommendations, Respondents finalized the alignment without
consulting Khammam Municipality, Roads and Buildings
Department and Gram Panchayats, and the alignment passes
very close to the Collectorate, educational institutions and
residential areas, thereby violating existing development plans
of the region. It is further contended that the State Government
had already planned a ring road for Khammam and allocated
Rs. 209 crores for land acquisition.
1.6. Petitioners further contend that the Manual of
Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the
National Highways Act, 1956 mandates that prior to issuance of
notification under Section 3D, an indicative assessment of land
acquisition cost based on collector rates should be undertaken
6
and if the cost is prohibitively high, the alignment should be
modified. It is contended that Respondents failed to undertake
such assessment and did not consult the District Collector,
despite the fact that the Collector had indicated that land cost
was Rs. 1 Crore per acre in 2018. Petitioners further contend
that the impugned alignment passes within a few feet of the new
Collectorate, educational institutions, human habitations and
valuable commercial sites.
1.7. Petitioners also contend that Respondents violated
the requirement of issuing composite notifications and instead
deliberately bifurcated the project into stretches less than 30
kilometers to circumvent statutory provisions and guidelines.
The impugned alignment violates Article 300A of the
Constitution, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2024, wherein it was held that the right
to property includes seven procedural safeguards such as
notice, hearing, reasoned decision, public purpose, fair
compensation, efficient conduct and conclusion of proceedings,
and non-compliance with these requirements renders the
acquisition invalid. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty, highway
alignments can be interfered with in cases of mala fide and
violation of statutory provisions, both of which are present in
7
the instant case. The Petitioners further contend that
segmentation of highways is impermissible as held in Civil
Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020 in National Highways
Authority of India v. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu.
1.8. Petitioners further contend that Respondents have
not respected judicial process and despite interim orders in Writ
Petition No. 3921 and 20359 of 2023, they continued issuing
notifications affecting the subject lands. Notification No. S.O.
4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 violates Section 3A(2) of the Act by
not providing particulars of land and that land owners have
been agitating for the past three years. Respondents have
deliberately segmented the highway into stretches of less than
30 kilometers, such as 16.68 kilometers, to avoid the
requirement of wide consultation under EIA Guidelines
applicable to Category “A” projects.
1.9. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents
failed to consider EIA Guidelines relating to existing land use
plans, environmental sensitivity areas within 15 kilometers, and
proximity to sensitive land uses such as hospitals, schools,
places of worship and community facilities, and that the
alignment passes close to government offices, educational
institutions and residential areas affecting health, safety and
livelihood. Petitioners further contend that Respondents violated
8
EIA Guidelines relating to air pollution mitigation, which require
avoidance of alignment near housing, schools and hospitals,
and also violated noise pollution guidelines requiring
development of bypass roads to avoid noise sensitive areas. It is
contended that the alignment passes very close to the District
Collector’s office, which is a noise sensitive area, as well as
Harvest Public School, Government Medical College and V.
Venkatayapalem Village.
1.10. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents
ignored stakeholder concerns in violation of EIA Guidelines
requiring incorporation of public concerns in the EIA and EMP.
The impugned alignment is contrary to the notification dated
26.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, which mandates that green-field alignments should
follow a crow-flight route, maintain distance from habitations
and connect towns through spurs. It is also contended,
Respondents failed to follow the Manual of Guidelines on Land
Acquisition for National Highways, particularly regarding
assessment of land acquisition cost and issuance of composite
notifications, and deliberately bifurcated the project to
circumvent legal requirements.
1.11. Petitioners further contend that Respondents acted
in haste and with mala fide intention, as reflected in the RTI
9
reply dated 08.02.2024 stating that alignment was finalized
after deliberations between the Chairman, NHAI and the State
Government, without disclosing the date of such decision. It is
further contended that earlier RTI reply dated 26.10.2021
refused disclosure citing an office memorandum dated
04.08.2021 and a High Court judgment dated 09.07.2021
without providing copies thereof. Petitioners further contend
that the consultant M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
submitted a cryptic and perfunctory report recommending the
impugned alignment without proper quantitative and qualitative
analysis, merely referring to “some” or “more” felling of trees.
1.12. Petitioners further contend that Environmental
Clearance Certificate No. EC23A034TG157248 is irrelevant and
misleading as it considers only construction phase pollution
and not operational pollution. It is contended that Respondents
failed to comply with conditions of the Environmental
Clearance, including publication in newspapers, dissemination
to local bodies and display for 30 days. The Certificate provides
for revocation in case of concealment or false data and that the
Respondents advertised the clearance only in negligible size in
obscure newspapers. Petitioners finally contend that the
impugned notifications are liable to be declared illegal, mala fide
and violative of statutory provisions, guidelines, Article 300A,
10
Article 14 and principles of natural justice and are liable to be
quashed, with a consequential direction restraining the
Respondents from proceeding further with the impugned
alignment.
2. Respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter contending that
the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory body
constituted by an Act of Parliament and is a Central
Government Agency entrusted with the responsibility of
development, maintenance and management of National
Highways and all matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. Keeping in view the national and larger public interest,
regional development and the objective of improving inter-State
connectivity, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and
NHAI have accorded approval for the development of the
Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under Bharatmala Pariyojana
Phase-1, and that the Warangal-Khammam section of NH-163G
forms an integral part of the said corridor. Respondents contend
that due care has been taken while fixing the alignment by
considering optimal and feasible options in light of prevailing
developments and that efforts were made to avoid existing
habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures.
It is further contended that after reconnaissance survey and
11
detailed deliberations, the present alignment was approved by
the competent authority.
2.1. The allegation of contradiction between the
notifications issued under Section 3A(1) and Section 3D(1) of
the Act is false and baseless. Due diligence was exercised in
finalizing the alignment, taking into account feasibility and
prevailing conditions, and that the alignment was approved only
after detailed deliberations and survey, while ensuring minimal
disturbance to existing settlements, water bodies and religious
structures. A meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under the
Chairmanship of the Secretary, Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi, wherein various alignment options for the Nagpur-
Vijayawada Corridor, as proposed by the DPR Consultant, were
deliberated and Option-1, which is the present alignment
bypassing hills and forest sections, was agreed upon. It is
further contended 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.
2.2. Respondents further contend that the format
adopted for publication of notification under Section 3A of the
Act is standardized and uniformly followed for all projects
12
across the country. It is contended that the names of land
owners are furnished at the stage of Section 3D notification. The
Respondents further contend that at the stage of Section 3A
notification, only preliminary assessment is undertaken based
on revenue maps and reference points without entering upon
the land for detailed survey, and that only after publication of
Section 3A notification, the authority is empowered under
Section 3B to enter the land for survey. It is further contended
that only after joint measurement survey with revenue
authorities, the exact details of survey numbers and names of
land owners or interested persons can be ascertained.
2.3. It is true that the District Collector, Khammam vide
letter Ref. No. G1/2771/2018 dated 17.05.2022, requested
change of alignment. However, it is contended that the said
request was duly considered and was responded to by the 4th
Respondent through letter dated 13.06.2022, wherein it was
categorically stated that change of alignment at that stage was
not feasible in view of the progress of land acquisition,
environmental clearance and other issues involved in the
project. All due procedures were followed in accordance with the
EIA Notification, 2006 and that the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change granted Environmental Clearance
for the development of the four-lane access-controlled Greenfield
13
Highway from Warangal (Chainage 112.240) to Khammam
(Chainage 220.480), having a total length of 108.24 kilometers
in the State of Telangana, vide EC Identification No.
EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023. The Terms of Reference
for the project proposal were duly approved by the Ministry vide
letter No. F.No. 10/32/2021-1A.III dated 16.08.2021.
2.4. It is also contended, in accordance with the
approved Terms of Reference, public hearings were conducted in
the project area, including at Raghunadhapalem Village in
Khammam District and Ayyagaripalle Village in Mahabubabad
District, under the supervision of the respective Additional
Collectors in the presence of Environmental Engineers of the
concerned regions. The issues raised by the public during such
hearings were duly addressed and incorporated in the
Environmental Management Plan. It is further contended that
details of the project were published in “The Hindu” and “Mana
Telangana” newspapers on 18.02.2023 and were displayed on
the notice boards of the concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30
days. The Respondents also contend that the District Collector,
Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the
Member Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of India, conveyed
that there would be no major impact on forest and environment
in Khammam District due to the project.
14
2.5. Respondents further contend that the 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 that compensation for land and
other affected properties shall be paid in accordance with the
provisions of the said Act. The State Government has conveyed
its concurrence to the original alignment finalized by NHAI vide
letter dated 01.02.2024 and that a fresh notification under
Section 3A has been issued vide S.O. 911(E) dated 26.02.2024.
3. Petitioners filed a reply contending that the present
writ petition is part of a group of seven writ petitions arising
out of the same subject matter and that counters have been
filed by the Respondents only in two writ petitions, while
counters in the remaining five writ petitions are yet to be filed,
though substantial legal issues have been raised therein to
assist this Court. The averments in paragraph 5 of the counter,
stating that due care was taken in fixing the alignment by
considering optimal and feasible options and avoiding existing
habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures,
are wholly false and contrary to the factual position. The
Petitioners contend that the Respondents have filed an
15
incomplete counter without addressing the statutory provisions,
rules and guidelines referred to in the affidavit of the
Petitioners.
3.1. Petitioners further contend that the assertion of
Respondents that human habitations have been avoided is
incorrect, as the impugned alignment passes through 625
house sites of 70 square yards each allotted to landless poor
persons, as evidenced by Exhibit P-1, and approximately 400
such house sites are directly affected, while the remaining sites
are likely to be rendered uninhabitable due to pollution caused
by the highway passing adjacent to the small residential plots.
Due care has not been exercised in fixing the alignment near the
Khammam District Collector’s Office at V. Venkatayapalem,
which is a noise-sensitive area housing several revenue courts.
The Petitioners contend that the alignment passes within a few
feet of the said office. It is also contended, the District Collector
himself addressed a letter dated 17.05.2022 to NHAI through
the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, stating that the
alignment was fixed without consulting local authorities and
required modification.
3.2. Petitioners further contend that the Member of
Parliament from Khammam addressed a letter dated 11.11.2022
to the Union Transport Minister requesting that the alignment
16
be shifted by at least 5 kilometers in view of local development
plans. The Petitioners further contend that the new Government
Medical College is situated at a distance of about 120 feet from
the alignment, another colony consisting of about 500 house
sites of landless poor is situated about 420 feet away, V.
Venkatayapalem Village having a population of about 5000 is
located at a distance of about 300 meters, the new Khammam
District Offices Complex is about 200 feet away, and the limits
of Khammam Municipal Corporation are within less than one
kilometer on the western side.
3.3. Petitioners further contend that due to the
establishment of the new Collectorate and the proposed ring
road by the State Government, Khammam town has expanded
significantly, and several thousands of house sites have been
developed in the area through which the impugned alignment
passes. Respondents have kept the Petitioners under
continuous uncertainty for nearly six years since 2019, when
the first notification under Section 3A(1) was issued, thereby
preventing development of the area and causing irreparable loss
and hardship to the landowners. The impugned alignment
passes through commercial house sites, human habitations,
educational institutions and important workplaces, in clear
17
violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines
and the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways.
3.4. As per Ex. P-3, the impugned alignment passes
near Khanapuram Haveli at a distance of about 400 feet, and
that the EIA Guidelines require avoidance of human habitations
and noise-sensitive areas either by altering alignment or by
constructing bypass roads, which has not been done in the
present case. Ex. P-4 demonstrates that the alignment is curved
and semi-circular in nature from Warangal to Jakkapudi, which
is contrary to Circular No. NH-15017/21/2018-P&M dated
26.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, which mandates that greenfield alignments should
follow a crow-flight route. Notifications under Section 3A(1) have
been issued from the year 2019 onwards without conducting
surveys, public consultations or obtaining Environmental
Clearance, as is evident from the Environmental Clearance
Certificate placed on record.
3.5. Petitioners further contend that they have filed a
detailed affidavit referring to the Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land
Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways
Act, 1956, which have not been addressed by the Respondents.
Paragraph 7 of the counter is merely a repetition of paragraph 5
18
and does not require separate reply. The averments in
paragraph 8 of the counter are self-contradictory, as it is stated
that the Land Acquisition Committee approved the alignment on
20.08.2020, whereas notifications under Section 3A(1) were
being issued from 2019 onwards, and the environmental public
hearing was conducted only on 15.03.2022. Environmental
Clearance for the Khammam to Jakkampudi section was issued
on 23.01.2023, and the Terms of Reference were approved only
on 26.07.2021, thereby demonstrating inconsistency in the
timeline.
3.6. The letter dated 08.02.2024 issued by the
Respondents states that the alignment was approved on
03.01.2019 and further states that the decision was taken after
deliberations with the Chairman, NHAI and the State
Government, indicating that such deliberations were conducted
belatedly, thereby putting the cart before the horse. It is further
contend that Respondents ought to have consulted the State
Government, local authorities, revenue authorities and
municipal bodies and obtained Environmental Clearance prior
to issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, but
failed to do so. The previous State Government had sought
change of alignment through the letter of the District Collector
dated 17.05.2022, but due to change in political circumstances,
19
the present alignment is being supported, which demonstrates
political influence and mala fide intention. Petitioners further
contend that the affected landowners have been subjected to
prolonged uncertainty and mental agony for nearly six years
and have suffered irreparable loss as they were unable to utilize
or develop their lands.
3.7. Petitioners further contend that the DPR
consultant, M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., submitted a
report in November 2021 stating that the baseline study was
conducted between April 2021 and June 2021, which
contradicts the Respondents claim that alignment and land
acquisition proposals were finalized in 2019 and 2020, thereby
rendering the process arbitrary and illogical. The said report
analyzed three alternative alignments, namely Option 1
(Greenfield alignment passing through multiple towns including
Khammam, Wyra, Bonkal, Madhira, G. Konduru and
Vijayawada covering 39 villages), Option 2 (Brownfield
alignment) and Option 3 (alternative Greenfield alignment), and
recommended Option 1 on the basis of lesser tree felling and
lower cost, which according to the Petitioners is a tailor-made
and arbitrary conclusion lacking proper analysis.
3.8. Petitioners further contend that the alignment
unnecessarily passes through the eastern side of Khammam
20
instead of adopting a straighter route on the western side
without crossing river Muneru, thereby increasing cost and
adversely affecting public interest. Paragraph 9 of the counter-
affidavit is legally unsustainable, as notification under Section
3A(1) is issued inviting objections and it is essential that
landowners are informed of the particulars of land proposed to
be acquired. Failure to provide such particulars violates Section
3A(2) and principles of natural justice, as landowners cannot
effectively file objections without knowing the extent of impact.
3.9. Respondents’ admission regarding the District
Collector’s letter dated 17.05.2022 and their rejection thereof by
letter dated 13.06.2022 is arbitrary and biased, as at that stage
no substantial progress had been made except issuance of
preliminary notifications, and even Environmental Clearance
had not been obtained. For the purpose of Environmental
Clearance, the project was divided into two sections, namely
Warangal to Khammam and Khammam to Vijayawada, while for
the purpose of notifications, the project was segmented into
stretches of less than 30 kilometers, namely Tirdhala to V.
Venkatayapalem measuring 29.92 kilometers and V.
Venkatayapalem to Kodumur measuring 16.66 kilometers, both
falling within the jurisdiction of R.DO.. Khammam, which is
contrary to guidelines.
21
3.10. Petitioners contend that Environmental Clearance
for Warangal to Khammam section was obtained on 16.02.2023
vide EC No. EC23A034TG157248 and for Khammam to
Vijayawada section on 23.01.2023 vide EC No.
EC23A034TG132431, and therefore the rejection of the District
Collector’s request on 13.06.2022 on the ground of progress of
Environmental Clearance is unjustified. The approvals referred
to by the Respondents have been obtained without following due
process of law and are therefore invalid. The public hearing
conducted on 15.03.2022 was belated and ineffective, and that
the letter dated 02.10.2022 of the District Collector pertains
only to environmental impact on forests and does not address
the issue of alignment near the District Offices Complex at V.
Venkatayapalem, which requires modification or provision of a
bypass.
3.11. Respondents have not complied with the provisions
of the National Highways Act, 1956, EIA Guidelines, Manual of
Land Acquisition for National Highways and the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such
guidelines have the force of law and that courts may interfere in
cases involving mala fide and violation of statutory provisions,
both of which are present in the instant case. Petitioners further
contend that Respondents have issued a fresh notification
22
under Section 3A(1) vide S.O. 911(E) dated 26.02.2024 during
the pendency of the writ petition, covering the same stretch and
involving some of the Petitioners, which amounts to contempt of
court and renders the earlier notifications illegal.
3.12. Petitioners further contend that the said notification
pertains to a stretch of 16.66 kilometers from V.
Venkatayapalem to Kodumur, forming part of the jurisdiction of
R.D.O., Khammam, while the remaining stretch of 29.92
kilometers from Tirdhala to V. Venkatayapalem also falls under
the same jurisdiction, and that the entire stretch ought to have
been notified as a single unit in accordance with guidelines.
Segmentation of the project is impermissible as per judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that Category “A” projects
involving more than 30 kilometers and multiple States require
strict compliance with procedural requirements including public
consultation.
3.13. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents
cannot continue issuing successive notifications under Section
3A from 2019 to 2024 without meaningful progression of the
acquisition process and without addressing public objections
and subsequent developments. The impugned Greenfield
Highway alignment is itself illegal as it provides for a right of
23
way of 45 meters, whereas the prescribed minimum width for
Greenfield Highways is 60 meters.
4. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri
N. Bhujanga Rao, learend Deputy Solicitor General and Sri
Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.
5. The primary challenge in the present Writ Petition is
directed against the notifications issued under Sections 3A(1)
and 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, namely
Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 and Notification
No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023, insofar as they relate to the
stretch of land from Km 203.8 to Km 220.48 of the Greenfield
Highway NH-163G, covering from Tirdhala Village to
Mallemadugu Village in Khammam District, and also the
alignment finalized by the Respondents in respect of the said
stretch.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the
National Highways Act, 1956 is a self-contained code governing
acquisition of land for national highways. Section 3A(1) of the
Act contemplates issuance of a preliminary notification
declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire
land, and Section 3A(2) requires that such notification shall
contain a brief description of the land. Section 3C provides a
24
specific statutory remedy to any person interested in the land to
file objections before the competent authority within the
prescribed time, and mandates consideration of such objections
by way of an adjudicatory process. Thereafter, Section 3D
contemplates declaration of acquisition upon consideration of
objections.
7. Thus, the statutory scheme clearly envisages a
two-stage process, wherein the initial notification under Section
3A is followed by an opportunity to the affected persons to
submit objections under Section 3C, and thereafter, a
declaration under Section 3D is issued. The Act, therefore,
provides an inbuilt mechanism for redressal of grievances
relating to acquisition, including issues concerning extent of
land, identification of land, adequacy of particulars and
objections to alignment. Petitioners have raised a multitude of
contentions challenging the impugned notifications and the
alignment, including alleged violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act
for want of proper particulars, contradiction between
notifications under Sections 3A and 3D, non-consultation of
stakeholders, violation of Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines, improper segmentation of the project, mala fide
exercise of power, non-consideration of alternative alignments,
25
and procedural irregularities in grant of environmental
clearance.
8. On the other hand, Respondents have specifically
contended that the alignment was finalized after due
deliberations at various levels, including approval in the meeting
held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary,
Road Transport and Highways, and approval by the Land
Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020; that environmental
clearance was granted on 16.02.2023 after following due
procedure including public hearings; and that the acquisition is
being undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of
the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the RFCTLARR Act,
2013.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, several of
the issues raised by Petitioners, particularly those relating to
the adequacy of particulars in the notification under Section
3A(2), alleged discrepancies between the notifications issued
under Sections 3A and 3D, the extent of land affected,
identification of survey numbers, and the impact of the
acquisition on specific properties and localities, are essentially
questions of fact which require detailed examination of records,
surveys and evidence.
26
10. Such questions are squarely within the domain of
the competent authority under Section 3C of the Act, which is
statutorily empowered to consider objections of interested
persons, conduct necessary inquiry and pass appropriate
orders. The Petitioners, therefore, have an effective and
efficacious remedy to raise all such factual and legal objections
before the said authority. Further, the grievance of Petitioners
that the notification under Section 3A does not contain
sufficient particulars as required under Section 3A(2) is also a
matter which can be effectively urged before the competent
authority, which is required to examine the validity of objections
and pass a reasoned order.
11. Insofar as the contention relating to contradiction
between the notifications under Sections 3A and 3D is
concerned, the same again involves comparison of factual
particulars, survey numbers and village details, which cannot
be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution without detailed factual verification. The
contentions relating to alignment of the highway, feasibility of
alternative routes, alleged deviation from a “crow-flight” route,
and the allegation that the alignment has been chosen with
mala fide intention to benefit certain individuals, also involve
complex factual and technical considerations, including
27
engineering feasibility, environmental impact, cost implications
and policy decisions, which are ordinarily within the domain of
expert authorities.
12. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review in
matters relating to infrastructure projects, particularly highway
alignment, is limited, and the Court does not sit in appeal over
technical decisions unless there is clear and demonstrable mala
fide or violation of statutory provisions on the face of the record.
Petitioners have also raised contentions regarding violation of
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, alleged
deficiencies in public consultation, and non-compliance with
conditions of environmental clearance. These issues, by their
very nature, involve examination of technical data, expert
reports, environmental assessments and compliance records,
which are not amenable to summary adjudication in writ
proceedings.
13. Moreover, such issues are governed by specialized
statutory frameworks and regulatory mechanisms, and
appropriate remedies are available before competent
authorities/forums in accordance with law. The contention
regarding segmentation of the project into stretches of less than
30 kilometers and its alleged violation of guidelines and judicial
28
precedents is also a mixed question of fact and law, which
requires detailed examination of the project structure,
administrative decisions, and statutory compliance, which is not
feasible in the present writ proceedings at this stage.
14. The allegation of mala fides raised by the
Petitioners, though serious in nature, is not supported by such
incontrovertible material on record at this stage so as to warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction, particularly when the statutory remedy under
Section 3C is yet to be exhausted. It is a settled principle of law
that when a statute provides a complete mechanism for
redressal of grievances, the High Court would ordinarily decline
to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
unless exceptional circumstances are made out, such as
violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or patent
illegality.
15. In the present case, this Court does not find that
Petitioners have made out such exceptional circumstances at
this stage, particularly when the statutory process of filing
objections under Section 3C of the Act is available and has not
been exhausted. The contention of the Petitioners that they
have no alternative remedy cannot be accepted in view of the
express provision under Section 3C of the Act, which provides
29
an efficacious remedy to raise all objections, including those
relating to legality of the notification, extent of land, and
alignment. It is also relevant to note that entertaining the writ
petition at this stage, without permitting the statutory authority
to consider the objections in the first instance, would result in
bypassing the statutory mechanism and would amount to pre-
empting the procedure contemplated under the Act.
16. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this
stage, inasmuch as the Petitioners have an effective alternative
statutory remedy which they are required to exhaust.
Accordingly, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition on
the ground of availability of alternative remedy, leaving it open
to the Petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 3C of the
Act. It is further made clear that in the event Petitioners file
objections under Section 3C, the competent authority shall
consider the same in accordance with law, objectively and
independently, without being influenced by any observations
made in this order, and shall pass a reasoned order dealing with
all contentions raised by the Petitioners.
17. It is also observed that all the contentions raised by
Petitioners, including those relating to violation of statutory
provisions, guidelines, alleged discrepancies in notifications and
30
alignment, are left open to be urged before the competent
authority.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds
that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this
stage in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative
remedy under Section 3C of the Act.
19. 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 National Highways Act, 1956 and to
raise all contentions available to them in law. No costs.
20. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
