Recently, in a common order disposing of multiple writ petitions, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the authorities to strictly adhere to the due process of law under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act), before proceeding with the acquisition of private lands across Vizianagaram District for a national highway project.
The petitioners had approached the Court contending that their properties were being interfered with and acquired without proper notification and declaration as required under Section 3A, Section 3D, and Section 3G of the NH Act, amounting to a violation of their constitutional right to property under Article 300-A. They alleged that while certain lands were notified for acquisition in the Gazette, their lands were neither duly notified nor subjected to the procedural safeguards prescribed under the law.
Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao observed, “The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, which elaborated the “real content of the right to property under Article 300-A”. In that decision, the Apex Court identified seven essential safeguards that the State must uphold before depriving a citizen of private property, namely- the Right to Notice, Right to be Heard, Right to a Reasoned Decision, Duty to Acquire Only for Public Purpose, Right to Fair Compensation, Right to an Efficient and Expeditious Process, and the Right of Conclusion.
The Court emphasized that “the above seven rights are foundational components of a law that is in tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one or more of them would render the law susceptible to challenge.” It further noted that these principles form an integral part of administrative law jurisprudence, having been incorporated into various acquisition statutes across the country.
Reiterating the need for lawful possession, the Bench observed, “The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the authorities to follow the due process of law before proceeding with any acquisition of the petitioner's land.
Case Title: Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition Nos. 26412, 26416, 26418, 26423, 26425, 26428, 26434, 26474, 26475 & 26497 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
Advocate for Petitioner: Arrabolu Sai Naveen
Advocate for Respondent: GP For Land Acquisition
Picture Source :