Telangana High Court
Yandapalli Satyanarayana 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. 20308 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Yandapalli Satyanarayana & others
..... Petitioners
And
The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners contend that they are the absolute
owners of lands situated in Regulachalaka Village,
Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, more
particularly: (1) Yandapalli Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkaiah,
owning lands in Sy. Nos (86 / A) / 2 88/Α/11/1, 89/Ε, 91 / A
(92 / A) / 3 (92 / A) / 4 93/U, 95/A/1, 95/A/2, (95 / A) / 3
98/A/1 and 99/A/2; (2) Mareddy Sudharani, W/o Veeraiah,
owning lands in Sy. Nos. (18 / A) / 1 89 / A 01/E, 92/A/1,
92/A/2, (6 / A) / 4 97/E, 100/E, 101 / U 103/A/3, 103/A/1
and 103/A/3; and (3) Koti Swathi, W/o Ramesh, owning lands
in Sy. Nos. 18/A/4/1, 21/A/2. 92 / A 96/A/A5, 97/A, 97 / A
(9 / A) / 1 (100 / A) / 1 101/E, 101 /U, 103/A/4 and 105/A,
and that all the said lands contain black granite in huge
2
quantity and the Petitioners hold valid mining licenses as
evidenced by Ex.- P17.
1.1. Petitioners contend that they approached this Court
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned
Greenfield Highway NH-163G alignment covered by Gazette
(Extraordinary) Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022
issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956
and the consequential Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated
04.09.2023 issued under Section 3D(1) of the said Act in the
stretch from Kim 203.8 to Km 220.48 as mala fide, illegal and
violative of the National Highways Act. 1956, Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines, Guidelines on Land Acquisition
for National Highways, Article 300A, principles of natural
justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and for
consequential relief of restraining the respondents from
proceeding further.
1.2. Petitioners further contend that as per the letter of
NHAI Project Implementation Unit-I, Khammam dated
08.02.2024, the impugned Nagpur-Vijayawada NH-163G
Greenfield Highway alignment was approved by NHAI oft
03.01.2019 and by the Land Acquisition Committee on
20.08.2020, and thereafter successive notifications under
Section 3A(1) of the Act were issued, culminating in Notification
3
No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 and Notification under
Section 3D dated 04.09.2023 covering a stretch of 16.6 km.
1.3. Petitioners also contend that they have been
subjected to continuous uncertainty and mental agony from the
year 2019 onwards on account of repeated notifications, and
that though Section 3A(1) notifications lapse after one year, the
Respondents have been reissuing notifications without
justification, without taking into account changes on ground
and concerns of stakeholders, and without repeating the entire
process of survey and public consultation, thereby tendering the
exercise arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act.
1.4. Petitioners further contend that the District
Collector, Khammam, by letter dated 17.05 2022 addressed to
the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Telangana, specifically pointed out that the impugned alignment
was finalized without consultation with 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 the cost of acquisition for the impugned
alignment would be exorbitantly high. The District Collector in
the said letter further stated that the State Government had
planned a ring road for Khammam and had released Rs.200
4
crores for land acquisition, and that the entire Khammam city
falls within 15 km aerial distance from the project boundary,
affecting nearly 5 lakh population, and further pointed out that
the area had already become urbanized due to construction of
the new Collectorate near V. Venkatayapalem and the proposed
ring road, resulting in potential loss of commercial house plots.
1.5. Petitioners contend that the Member of Parliament,
Lok Sabha, Khammam, namely Nama Nageswara Rao,
addressed a letter to the Union Minister for Road Transport and
Highways requesting shifting of the alignment by at least five
kilometers in view of the State Government master plans and
urbanization, and that two Rajya Sabha Members also
addressed similar letters seeking change of alignment. Several
land losers similarly situated have approached this Court in
W.P. Nos. 3921 of 2023, 20359 of 2023, 9109 of 2024 and
14632 of 2024 and obtained interim orders. Petitioners also
contend that the impugned Gazette Notification issued under
Section 3A(1) is in clear violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act,
inasmuch as only vague and misleading particulars of lands
were furnished, thereby depriving affected persons of the
opportunity to file meaningful objections, and further that
publication was made in newspapers such as Hans India and
5
Mana Telangana which have limited circulation, with the intent
of avoiding public notice.
1.6. Petitioners contend that the impugned notifications
are in derogation of the Manual of Guidelines on Land
Acquisition for National Highways under the Act, particularly
with regard to assessment of cost of acquisition, which
mandates indicative assessment of land acquisition cost based
on collector rates before issuance of Section 3D notification and
requires alignment changes if costs are prohibitively high.
Petitioners also contend that Respondents have violated the said
Manual with respect to segmentation of the project, which
mandates issuance of composite notifications within one
jurisdiction, whereas the Respondents have intentionally
bifurcated the project into stretches of less than 30 km to
circumvent legal requirements and have failed to consult the
District Collector regarding cost implications, despite the
Collector’s letter dated 17.05.2022.
1.7. Petitioners further contend that the impugned
alignment is contrary to the Manual with regard to width of the
project, inasmuch as the impugned Greenfield Highway has a
width of 45 meters near V. Venkatayapalem, whereas the
Manual prescribes a minimum right of way of 60 meters for a
4/6/8 lane highway and 90 meters for an expressway, and
6
therefore the project is illegal and contrary to prescribed norms.
Petitioners also contend that the Manual envisages acquisition
of 60 to 70 meters right of way for Greenfield highways to cater
to long-term traffic requirements of 30 to 40 years and for
expansion up to 8 lanes with service roads, which has not been
followed in the present case.
1.8. Petitioners further contend that impugned
alignment violates the Manual with respect to route selection,
which requires adoption of a crow-flight route with minimal
deviation and at a reasonable distance from existing
habitations, whereas the present alignment deviates from such
principles. The impugned alignment is in contravention of
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines dated 14.09.2006
and amendment dated 01.12.2009, inasmuch as the project has
been wrongly treated as Category “B” instead of Category “A”,
despite satisfying the criteria of length exceeding 30 km, width
exceeding 20 meters and inter-state connectivity, thereby
requiring extensive public consultations. Respondents have
deliberately segmented the project into stretches of less than 30
km, including the present stretch of 16.6 km. to circumvent the
requirement of treating the project as Category “A”, which is
impermissible in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020 in The National
7
Highways Authority of India v Pandarinathan
Govindarajulu.
1.9. Petitioners also contend that the impugned
alignment is in violation of EIA Guidelines relating to local
development plans, which require consideration of existing
development plans, alternative alignments and consultation
with local authorities, and that the District Collector in his letter
dated 17.05.2022 specifically stated that the alignment was
finalized without such consultation. The impugned alignment
violates EIA Guidelines relating to land use plans and
environmental sensitivity, as the entire Khammam city falls
within 15 km of the project boundary, affecting a population of
about 5 lakh, and that sensitive areas including hospitals,
schools and community facilities were not properly considered.
Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment violates
EIA Guidelines relating to mitigation of air pollution, which
require selection of alignment avoiding proximity to housing,
schools and hospitals.
1.10. Petitioners further contend that the impugned
alignment violates EIA Guidelines relating to noise environment,
which mandate development of bypass roads to avoid noise
sensitive areas, whereas the present alignment passes within a
few feet of the District Collector’s office, Harvest Public School,
8
Government Medical College and V. Venkatayapalem Village.
The impugned alignment is mala fide in its design, inasmuch as
instead of adopting a crow-flight route from Warangal to
Vijayawada through the western side of Khammam, the
Respondents have taken the alignment to the eastern side,
making a right turn, unnecessarily crossing the Muneru river
and increasing the length of the highway, with the intention of
benefiting certain influential persons at the cost of public
interest. Respondents have acted in haste and clandestinely by
issuing notifications under Section 3A(1) without conducting
proper surveys, public consultations or involving local bodies,
and by publishing notifications in newspapers with limited
circulation, and by not providing brief particulars as mandated
under Section 3A(2), thereby violating principles of natural
justice. Petitioners also contend that several Gram Panchayats
have passed resolutions opposing the impugned alignment and
have stated that they were not aware of the environmental
clearance process, as evidenced by Exs.P11 and P12,
demonstrating absence of public consultation.
1.11. Petitioners further contend that as per reply dated
08.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act, it was stated
that the alignment was finalized after deliberations between the
Chairman, NHAI and the State Government, without specifying
9
the date of such decision, which could not have been prior to
17.05.2022, thereby rendering earlier approvals dated
03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020 illegal. The 5th Respondent, by reply
dated 26.10.2021 under the RTI Act, refused to furnish
information citing NHAI Headquarters Office Memorandum
dated 04.08.2021 and a High Court judgment dated
09.07.2021, without providing copies thereof, thereby acting
mala fide. The Executive Summary dated November 2021
submitted by ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. states that
baseline study was conducted only between April 2021 and
June 2021, which raises serious doubt as to how notifications
were issued as early as 2019 and 17.05.2021, indicating
premeditated and perfunctory exercise.
1.12. Petitioners also contend that the selection of
impugned alignment “A” out of alternatives “A”, “B” and “C” is
mala fide, as the consultant’s report is cryptic, perfunctory and
does not provide quantitative or qualitative analysis, does not
consider other parameters under the Manual, and fails to
properly evaluate alternative alignments. The consultant failed
to consider public consultation, involvement of local authorities,
EIA Guidelines, Land Acquisition Guidelines and mitigation
measures, and that the reasoning based on felling of “some” or
“more” trees is vague and insufficient. Respondents have shown
10
disregard to judicial process by continuing to issue notifications
and proceed with the project despite interim orders granted in
similar writ petitions. Petitioners finally contend that in view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
Nos. 2866-2880 of 2011 in Union of India v. Dr. Kushala
Shetty, though highway alignments are ordinarily not interfered
with, the present case falls within the exception of mala fides
and violation of statutory provisions, warranting interference by
this Court,
2. Respondents contend that the 3rd Respondent,
namely the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), is a
statutory authority constituted by an Act of Parliament and is
entrusted with the responsibility of 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,
undertaken keeping in view national interest, regional
development and the objective of improving inter-State
connectivity, and that the Khammam-Vijayawada section of NH-
163G is an integral part of the said corridor. Due care was
taken while fixing the alignment of the project by considering
optimal and feasible alignment options in light of prevailing
developments, and that necessary precautions were taken to
11
avoid existing habitats, settlements, water bodies and religious
structures, and that the alignment was finalized after
reconnaissance survey and detailed deliberations by the
competent authority.
2.1. Respondents further contend that a meeting was
held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary
(Road Transport and Highways), New Delhi, wherein alignment
options for the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor as presented by the
DPR Consultant were deliberated, and Option-1, namely the
present alignment bypassing hills and forest sections, was
agreed upon. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Committee of
NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting held on 20.08.2020,
deliberated the matter and accorded approval for the present
alignment of the Mancherial-Vijayawada Corridor with a right of
way of 45 meters. Respondents further contend that earlier
notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways
Act, 1956 had lapsed due to various reasons, and therefore a
fresh Gazette Notification bearing No. S.O. 4407(E) dated
21.09.2022 was issued under Section 3A(1) covering an extent
of 82.79 hectares, duly providing brief description of land as
required under Section 3A(2) of the Act.
2.2. Respondents also contend that the format adopted
for publication of Section 3A notifications is standardized across
12
the country and that it the stage of Section 3A notification, only
preliminary assessment based on revenue maps and reference
points is undertaken without entering into the land, and that
detailed particulars of land and land owners can be ascertained
only after survey under Section 3B. After publication of Section
3A notification, the authority is empowered under Section 38 to
enter the land for survey, and that only after conducting Joint
Measurement Survey with revenue authorities, exact survey
number-wise details of affected lands along with names of land
owners or interested persons can be determined.
2.3. Respondents also contend that after completion of
such Joint Measurement Survey, Gazette Notification bearing
No. S.O. 3928(E) dated 04.09.2023 was issued under Section
3D of the Act, duly specifying details of farmers and extent of
land required for acquisition. The project stretch was divided
into several packages only for convenience of construction and
ease of implementation, and that environmental clearance as
well as notifications under Sections 3A and 3D were issued
stretch-wise, namely Warangal-Khammam and Khammam-
Vijayawada, and not in the form of packages, and therefore the
allegation of segmentation to circumvent law is incorrect. The
notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D were made
available in the public domain through platforms such as the
13
Bhoomi Rasi Portal and the Government of India e-Gazette
website.
2.4. Respondents further contend that the proposed
alignment does not obstruct or create any impediment to the
proposed Khammam ring road and that the State Government is
free to take up the said project. It is a fact that the District
Collector, Khammam, vide letter Rc. No, G1/2771/2018 dated
17.05.2022, requested for change of alignment, but the said
request was examined and was rejected by the 4th Respondent
vide letter dated 13.06.2022 on the ground that change of
alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the status of
land acquisition, environmental clearance and other project-
related considerations. The State Government, vide letter No.
2689/R1(2)/2019 dated 01.02.2024, conveyed its concurrence
for the original alignment finalized by NHAI, and consequently a
fresh Section 3A notification bearing No. S.O. 911(E) dated
26.02.2024 was issued.
2.5. Respondents also contend that with regard to
environmental clearances, due procedure as prescribed under
EIA Notification, 2006 was followed and requisite documents
and reports were submitted, and that the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) granted
Environmental Clearance for the project titled “Development of
14
4-Lane Access Controlled new Greenfield Highway section of
Warangal to Khammam of length 108.240 Km from Design
Chainage 112-240 to Design Chainage 220+480 under other
Economic Corridor (NHO) Programme in the State of Telangana”
vide EC Identification No. EC23A034TG157248 dated
16.02.2023. Respondents further contend that the Terms of
Reference for the project, proposals were approved by the
Ministry vide letter No. F.No.10/32/2021-1A.111 dated
16.08.2021.
2.6. Respondents also contend that in compliance with
the approved Terms of Reference, public hearings were
conducted after due notice in newspapers and in the respective
villages, namely Raghunadhapalem village in Khammam District
and Ayyagaripalle village in Mahabubabad District, presided
over by the Additional District Collectors and Additional District
Magistrates of the respective districts in the presence of
Environmental Engineers, and that the issues raised by the
public were duly addressed before grant of Environmental
Clearance on 16.02.2023. The Environmental Clearance was
published in newspapers namely “The Hindu” and “Mana
Telangana” on 18.02.2023, and that the same was also
communicated vide letter dated 23:02.2023 to all Tahsildar
offices of the mandals falling within the alignment with a
15request to display the same on notice boards for public access.
Respondents also contend that the District Collector.
Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the
Member Secretary, MoEF&CC, Government of India, stated that
there would be no major impact on forest and environment in
Khammam District due to the project.
2.7. Respondents further contend that the
Environmental Clearance was obtained by treating the project
as Category “A”, and therefore the contention of Petitioners that
it was wrongly treated as Category “B” is incorrect. The
Environmental Clearance was obtained for the entire Warangal-
Khammam section, and that segmentation into three packages
was only for the purpose of competitive bidding and ease of
implementation. Land acquisition for the project is being
undertaken 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 associated properties is being
determined and paid in accordance with the said enactments.
3. Petitioners contend that the present writ petition is
part of a group of seven writ petitions, out of which Writ
Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20359 of 2024 and
1622802 of 2024 pertain to a stretch from V. Venkatayapalem (V)
to Brahmana Palli (V) covering 29.92 km forming part of
Khammam to Vijayawada section, situated on the southern side
of the District Collector’s Office, V. Venkatayapalem, and the
remaining three writ petitions bearing Writ Petitions. 14632 of
2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024 pertain to a stretch of
16.67 km from Tirdhala (V) to V. Venkatayapalem (V) forming
part of Warangal to Khammam section situated on the northern
side, and that both the stretches fall under the jurisdiction of
Khammam R.D.O., separated by 100 Feet Wyra Road, and are
interconnected, thereby requiring simultaneous consideration.
3.1. Petitioners further contend that counter affidavit
filed by Respondents 3 to 5 is incomplete and irregular, as it
does not deal with the paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the
Petitioners in their entirety and fails to answer most of the
issues raised therein, and that the contents of the counter are
liable to be treated as denied except to the extent specifically
admitted. Petitioners also contend that the assertion of the
Respondents that due care was taken in fixing the alignment is
false, and that the impugned alignment passes through 725
house sites of 70 square yards each allotted to landless poor by
the State Government, out of which about 400 house sites are
directly affected, and the remaining are likely to be adversely
17
affected due to pollution from the highway. Petitioners further
contend that due care was not exercised in fixing the alignment
near the District Collector’s Office at V. Venkatayapalem, which
is a work place and a noise sensitive area housing several
revenue courts, and that the alignment passes at a distance of
about 200 feet from the said office, and that the District
Collector himself had addressed a letter dated 17.05.2022
seeking change of alignment.
3.2. Petitioners also contend that the impugned
alignment is in close proximity to several sensitive and
populated areas, including the new Government Medical College
at a distance of about 120 feet, another colony of about 500
house sites at a distance of about 420 feet, V. Venkatayapalem
Gram Panchayat having a population of about 5000 at about
300 meters, and that Khammam Municipal Corporation limits
are within less than one kilometer, thereby demonstrating
violation of Environmental Impact Assessment norms. Due to
construction of the new Collectorate, proposed ring road and
other developmental activities, several thousands of house sites
have come up in the area through which the impugned
alignment passes, and that Khammam town has expanded by at
least 5 km beyond the alignment, thereby showing that the
alignment passes through human habitations, commercial
18
plots, educational institutions and important work places in
violation of EIA Guidelines and the Manual of Land Acquisition.
Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment passes
near Khanapuram Haveli village at a distance of about 400 feet,
and that the EIA Guidelines require that alignment should avoid
human habitations and noise sensitive areas or provide bypass
roads.
3.3. It is also contended, the alignment is not in a crow-
flight route but is semi-circular and curved, thereby increasing
the length of the highway, which is contrary to Circular No. NH-
15017/21/2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, mandating that highways should follow a crow-flight
route with minimal deviation from the starting point to the end
point. Notifications under Section 3A(1) of the Act were issued
without conducting surveys, without public consultation and
without obtaining Environmental Clearance Certificate, as
evident from the dates mentioned in the Environmental
Clearance documents. Respondents have ignored the
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2006 and the
Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National
Highways under the Act, despite detailed references made by
Petitioners in their affidavit.
19
3.4. Petitioners also contend that the approval dates
relied upon by the Respondents are contradictory, inasmuch as
the Land Acquisition Committee is stated to have approved the
alignment on 20.08.2020, whereas notifications under Section
3A(1) were issued as early as 17.05.2019 vide S.O. No. 1914(E),
and that Environmental Clearance was obtained much later.
The impugned Greenfield Highway having a width of 45 meters
is contrary to the Manual of Highways which prescribes a
minimum width of 60 meters, and that such deviation is illegal.
It is also stated, Environmental Clearance Certificate No.
EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023 for the Khammam to
Vijayawada stretch contains generalized and incorrect data,
including statements that wheat is a main crop in the area and
that the area within 10 km is predominantly agricultural and
uninhabited, whereas in reality Khammam Municipal
Corporation with a population of about 5 lakh lies within 10
km.
3.5. Petitioners further contend that the DPR
Consultant, namely M/s. ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT.
LTD., in its report dated November 2021, stated that baseline
studies were conducted between April 2021 and June 2021,
which contradicts the issuance of Section 3A notifications prior
thereto. Environmental Clearance Certificate No.
20
EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023 for Warangal to
Khammam stretch similarly contains incorrect and generalized
data and fails to reflect the actual ground realities, including
population density and land use. The dates mentioned in the
Environmental Clearance Certificates belie the issuance of
earlier notifications under Section 3A(1), thereby demonstrating
that the Respondents acted without completing prerequisite
procedures. The letter dated 08.02.2024 of the 5th Respondent
stating that the alignment was approved on 03.01.2019 is
incorrect, and that the statement that the alignment was
finalized after deliberations with the Chairman, NHAI and the
State Government is a belated justification.
3.6. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents
ought to have consulted the State Government, local revenue
authorities, municipal authorities, local bodies and obtained
Environmental Clearance prior to issuance of Section 3A(1)
notification, as required under the Manual of Guidelines.
Respondents cannot repeatedly issue Section 3A(1) notifications
year after year upon lapse, and that the purpose of limiting
validity to one year is to ensure meaningful reconsideration
including public consultation and consideration of
developments on ground. The contention of Respondents that
Section 3A notifications are issued without detailed particulars
21
is legally untenable, as Section 3A(2) mandates furnishing of
brief but meaningful particulars of land to enable stakeholders
to file objections, and that failure to do so violates principles of
natural justice. Petitioners also contend that furnishing land
particulars at the stage of Section 3D notification is of no
consequence, as objections to alignment cannot be raised at
that stage. Segmentation of the project into stretches of 16.67
km and 29.92 km is illegal and intended to circumvent
Environmental Impact Assessment requirements, and that such
segmentation has been held impermissible by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020.
3.7. Petitioners also contend that the impugned
alignment obstructs the proposed Khammam ring road,
inasmuch as the highway is proposed at a height of about 15
feet, thereby preventing construction of underpasses or flyovers
without Union Government approval and effectively separating
Khammam town from the Collector’s office and surrounding
areas. The impugned alignment would adversely affect drainage
and flood flow, particularly at the intersection near Wyra Road,
acting as a barrier like a tank bund and leading to flooding of
surrounding areas including the Collector’s office and nearby
lands. Rejection of the District Collector’s request dated
17.05.2022 for change of alignment by letter dated 13.06.2022
22
is arbitrary, prejudiced and mala fide, particularly as
Environmental Clearance had not even been obtained by that
time. The concurrence of the State Government vide letter dated
01.02.2024 cannot validate earlier actions, and that earlier the
State Government had sought change of alignment considering
its plans for ring road, allocation of Rs.209 crores for land
acquisition, construction of Collectorate, housing schemes and
Government Medical College.
3.8. Petitioners also contend that the alleged
concurrence is merely a change of opinion due to political
considerations and does not alter the factual situation on
ground, and that the impugned alignment continues to be mala
fide and illegal, causing irreparable loss and mental agony to
affected land owners. Respondents have acted in haste and in
violation of law by issuing notifications prior to conducting
ground studies and prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance,
and that Environmental Clearances for Warangal to Khammam
(EC Identification No. EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023)
and Khammam to Vijayawada (EC Identification No.
EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023) were obtained belatedly
after issuance of notifications. Public hearings for
Environmental Clearance were conducted only in the month of
February/March 2022, after issuance of notifications, and
23
therefore the entire process is vitiated. Respondents failed to
follow EIA Guidelines and the Manual of Land Acquisition,
which mandate extensive public consultation prior to
Environmental Clearance, consideration of alternative
alignments, adherence to crow-flight route, and avoidance of
human habitations and sensitive areas.
3.9. Petitioners also contend that mere compliance with
the National Highways Act, 1956 and the RFCTLARR Act. 2013
is not sufficient, and that the Respondents are bound to comply
with the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways,
2018 and EIA Guidelines, 2006, which have been completely
ignored. They finally contend that the DPR report submitted by
M/s. ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. in November 2021
is cryptic and tailor-made, and though it considered three
alternative alignments, the recommendation of Option-1 is
based on vague reasoning such as lesser felling of trees without
proper comparative analysis, and that the entire alignment from
Warangal to Vijayawada is irrational, as the highway could have
followed a crow-flight route from the western side of Khammam
without crossing the Muneru river.
4. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners,
24
Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General, Sri
Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.
5. At the outset, it is to be noted that the impugned
notifications have been issued under Sections 3A(1) and 3D(1) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, in relation to acquisition of
land for formation of a Greenfield National Highway, namely
NH-163G, forming part of a larger corridor connecting Nagpur to
Vijayawada under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I. The principal
grievance of petitioners centers around the alignment of the said
highway, alleging that the same is arbitrary, mala fide and in
violation of the provisions of the Act, the Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines, the Manual of Guidelines on Land
Acquisition for National Highways and constitutional
protections under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
6. Petitioners have also raised multiple contentions
relating to alleged absence of proper public consultation,
improper segmentation of the project, violation of statutory
guidelines, inadequacy of particulars in notifications under
Section 3A(1), and alleged deviations from environmental norms.
On the other hand, Respondents have placed material on record
to demonstrate that alignment was finalized after due
deliberations by the competent authority in meetings held on
03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020, that successive notifications were
25
issued in accordance with the statutory scheme, and that
Environmental Clearance was obtained on 16.02.2023 after
conducting public hearings in the project area. It is also brought
on record by the Respondents that the project forms part of a
nationally significant infrastructure corridor aimed at improving
inter-State connectivity and regional development, and that the
alignment was selected based on feasibility considerations after
reconnaissance survey and evaluation of alternatives. In the
above backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate to first
examine the statutory framework governing the field.
7. The National Highways Act, 1956 provides a
complete and self-contained mechanism for acquisition of land
for National Highways, beginning with issuance of notification
under Section 3A(1) indicating intention to acquire land,
followed by inviting objections, conducting surveys under
Section 3B, and culminating in declaration under Section 3D(1)
whereby the land vests in the Central Government. The scheme
of the Act thus contemplates a structured process wherein
affected persons are provided an opportunity to raise objections
and seek redressal within the statutory framework itself. It is
also evident that issues relating to alignment, feasibility,
selection of route and other technical considerations are integral
to the execution of large-scale infrastructure projects and
26
involve evaluation of complex technical, environmental and
economic factors.
8. The contentions raised by Petitioners, upon careful
examination, pertain substantially to such aspects, including
the suitability of alignment, adequacy of surveys, correctness of
environmental assessment, and alleged deviation from
guidelines. These issues, by their very nature, involve disputed
questions of fact requiring appreciation of technical data, expert
reports, feasibility studies and ground-level assessments, which
are not amenable to adjudication in writ proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that matters relating to fixation of
alignment of National Highways and similar infrastructure
projects fall within the domain of expert bodies, and the scope of
judicial review in such matters is extremely limited. The Court,
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, does not sit in
appeal over the decisions of expert authorities, particularly in
matters involving technical expertise, unless the decision is
shown to be ex facie arbitrary, contrary to statutory provisions
or vitiated by established mala fides.
10. In the present case, though Petitioners made
allegations of mala fides and violation of statutory provisions,
27
such allegations are seriously disputed by Respondents, who
have placed material indicating compliance with the statutory
procedure, approvals by competent authorities and grant of
Environmental Clearance after due process. This Court finds
that the determination of whether the alignment is appropriate
or whether alternative alignments are preferable would
necessarily require detailed examination of technical material,
expert reports and comparative analysis, which is beyond the
permissible scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction.
11. Similarly, issues relating to adequacy of particulars
under Section 3A(1), sufficiency of public consultation, and
compliance with environmental norms are matters which can
appropriately be raised and adjudicated within the statutory
framework itself. It is also pertinent to note that the National
Highways Act, 1956 provides for submission of objections and
consideration thereof by the competent authority, thereby
affording an effective opportunity to the affected land owners to
ventilate their grievances. The existence of such an effective
statutory remedy is a relevant consideration which ordinarily
restrains this Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226, particularly when disputed questions of fact
are involved.
28
12. This Court is also mindful of the fact that large-
scale infrastructure projects such as National Highways are
undertaken in public interest and involve substantial planning
and investment, and therefore, interference at an intermediate
stage, in the absence of clear illegality, may not be warranted.
Insofar as the allegation of mala fides is concerned, this Court
finds that the same has been asserted in general terms and is
not supported by specific and cogent material of such nature as
would warrant interference at this stage. It is trite law that
allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with specificity and
established with clear evidence, and cannot be inferred on mere
conjectures or suspicions. In the present case, the material
placed on record by the Respondents, including approvals,
notifications and environmental clearance, prima facie indicate
that the statutory procedure has been followed.
13. This Court is therefore, of the considered opinion
that the issues raised by the Petitioners are not such as would
justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at this
stage. On the contrary, Petitioners have an effective and
efficacious alternative remedy available under the provisions of
the National Highways Act, 1956 to raise all their grievances,
including those relating to alignment, acquisition and
compensation.
29
14. It is well settled that when such alternative remedy
exists, particularly under a complete statutory framework, this
Court would ordinarily decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction,
unless exceptional circumstances are made out. No such
exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in the
present case so as to bypass the statutory mechanism and
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly,
this Court holds that the writ petition is premature and not
maintainable at this stage.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that writ petition is liable to be disposed of,
leaving it open to Petitioners to avail the alternative statutory
remedy available under the National Highways Act, 1956.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of,
granting liberty to Petitioners to raise all the contentions urged
in the present writ petition before the competent authority in
accordance with law. It is further directed that if objections or
representations are filed by Petitioners, the competent authority
shall consider the same objectively, in accordance with law, and
pass appropriate orders after affording due opportunity to
Petitioners. No costs.
30
17. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
