[Cites 49, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Bollu Sammi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 26406 of 2025
07thApril, 2026
Between:
1. Bollu Sammi Reddy, and others
... Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Telangana, and others
... Respondents
ORDER:
The case of the petitioners, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that
they are small and marginal farmers whose primary livelihood comes from
cultivating their agricultural lands in Oorugonda village. The subject lands
are also highly valuable due to their proximity to developing urban
infrastructure such as the Warangal outer ring road and existing highways.
A preliminary acquisition notification was issued under Section 3A of the
National Highways Act through Gazette Notification No. 1102(E) dated
10.03.2021, which was published in newspapers on 25.03.2021. This
notification proposed acquisition of lands in approximately ten villages
across the Parkal, Shayampet, and Damera mandals for constructing a
four-lane greenfield highway forming part of the NH-163G project,
covering the stretch from Km 88.418 to Km 111.762 within the then
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
Warangal (Rural) District, later renamed Hanumakonda District. The
petitioner states that the notification failed to provide landowner-wise
details and instead merely listed survey numbers and extents without
adequate descriptions, maps, or plans. As a result, affected landowners
lacked the information necessary to determine the precise extent of
acquisition affecting their individual holdings and were thereby prevented
from filing meaningful objections. The petitioner further claims that the
authorities did not make maps available at the office of the competent
authority as indicated in the notification, nor did they conduct any Gram
Sabha meetings or other local consultations to inform affected residents.
Despite this lack of information, some affected landowners--including
some of the petitioners--submitted common objections to the authorities.
1.1. During the same period, an environmental impact assessment
process was undertaken, and a public hearing was held in which many
affected villagers recorded objections to the project. After that hearing, the
petitioner states that the landowners received no further communication for
nearly a year. They subsequently became aware of a public notice dated
04.02.2023, published in newspapers on 15.02.2023, issued under Section
3G of the National Highways Act, requiring them to appear before the
competent authority on various dates between 23.02.2023 and 09.03.2023
to present their compensation claims. According to the petitioners, it was
only through this notice that they learned of the issuance of a declaration
under Section 3D via Gazette Notification No. 1017 dated 08.03.2022,
confirming the acquisition of their lands. The petitioners asserts that this
declaration had never been properly published in local newspapers or
circulated within the affected locality, and that affected landowners
therefore lacked timely knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
Following this discovery, the landowners submitted representations to the
authorities demanding that the process be halted and pointing out alleged
procedural irregularities.
1.2. In response to these developments, certain affected persons
from several villages in Damera Mandal--including residents of
Oorugonda--approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 5187 of 2023,
challenging the validity of the Section 3D declaration and the
compensation inquiry notice under Section 3G. Their challenge was based
on the allegation that these steps had been taken before obtaining
environmental clearance for the project, which they argued was contrary to
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court initially
granted a stay on further proceedings for more than six months. However,
during the pendency of that writ petition, environmental clearance for the
highway project was eventually obtained, and this Court consequently
dismissed the petition in October 2023. It is stated that the affected
landowners subsequently filed Writ Appeal No. 1190 of 2023, which
remains pending. After dismissal of the writ petition, the authorities
resumed the acquisition process and proceeded to issue compensation
notices and awards.
1.3. It is stated that further complications arose when authorities
began issuing notices under Section 3E demanding that landowners
surrender possession of their lands even before providing copies of the
compensation awards. In April 2024, some landowners from Oorugonda
village filed W.P. No. 9909 of 2024, contesting multiple acquisition
notifications--including Section 3A notifications S.O. No. 1102 dated
10.03.2021 and S.O. No. 1905 dated April 21, 2022, Section 3D
notifications No. 1017 dated 08.03.2022 and No. 3526 dated 29.07.2022,
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
the Section 3G public notice dated 04.02.2023, and an unnumbered notice
dated 13.01.2024 relating to the same lands. In that proceeding, this Court
issued interim protection against dispossession through an order dated
03.05.2024, and those orders have reportedly been extended from time to
time and remain in force. Because the lands involved in that litigation are
adjacent to the petitioners' lands and arise from the same acquisition
notifications, the petitioner believed that the authorities would not attempt
to dispossess them until the legal issues were finally resolved. Meanwhile,
the petitioner asserts that despite repeated requests, copies of the
compensation awards were not provided until February 2025, after several
written representations were submitted.
1.4. It is alleged that even after receiving the awards, the
authorities failed to address the concerns raised in those representations.
Beginning around June-July 2025, workmen accompanied by police
personnel allegedly entered the petitioners' lands and warned them not to
cultivate the land during the current agricultural season. The petitioners
claim that officials also imposed deadlines on landowners to accept
compensation by the end of the month, warning that if payment was not
accepted the money would be deposited in court and possession of the land
would nevertheless be taken. It is stated that the authorities never
communicated the decision on those objections. Only after obtaining the
full case records, including the counter-affidavits filed by the authorities in
earlier litigation, did the petitioners obtain a copy of the disposal order in
Proceedings No. B/85/2021 dated 20.11.2021. According to the petitioners,
a review of that order demonstrates that the competent authority failed to
independently examine the objections and instead issued a non-reasoned
decision without proper application of mind. The petitioner also alleges
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
that the government issued multiple Section 3A notifications--dated
10.03.2021 and 08.05.2022--with incomplete or inconsistent information,
without clarifying whether the later notification represented an additional
acquisition or a change in alignment. It is stated that these notifications
were published only in the newspapers "Mana Telangana" and "The
Hindu," which allegedly have limited circulation in the affected villages,
and that the authorities did not publish the substance of the notifications
locally or conduct any Gram Sabha meetings as is customary under land
acquisition procedures.
1.5. It is contended that the authorities incorrectly relied on
Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 to determine
compensation, despite the fact that the Removal of Difficulties Order dated
28.08.2015 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 extends the
compensation and rehabilitation provisions of that Act to acquisitions
carried out under other enactments listed in its Fourth Schedule, including
the National Highways Act. According to the petitioners, this legal
framework requires that compensation be determined in accordance with
Sections 21 to 30 of the 2013 Act and that rehabilitation and resettlement
benefits be determined under Sections 16 to 18, 23, and 31, along with the
First, Second, and Third Schedules of that Act. It is stated that the
competent authority failed to follow these procedures and did not conduct
the required award enquiry or prepare a rehabilitation and resettlement
scheme. Additionally, the District Collector did not revise the market value
of the lands under Section 26 prior to issuing the acquisition notification,
and that land valuation rates had not been revised since 2013. The
petitioner further alleges that two different compensation rates were
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
applied to awards issued in January 2024 merely because the relevant
Section 3A notifications were issued one year apart, resulting in
discriminatory treatment among landowners within the same village for the
same highway project.
1.6. It is stated that the awards themselves are incomplete because
they fail to determine compensation for trees, structures, and other assets
located on the acquired lands. The authorities neither conducted a proper
enumeration of trees and structures nor issued notices to the landowners
regarding their valuation. It is contended that, under the applicable legal
framework, possession of land cannot be taken until full compensation--
including compensation for structures and trees as well as any applicable
rehabilitation entitlements--has been determined and offered to affected
landowners. Nevertheless, the officials and contractors have continued to
enter the fields to mark and clear land, asserting that the petitioners' lands
are not covered by the interim orders previously granted by this Court. The
petitioners therefore seek to declare the impugned notifications and awards
illegal, and restrain the authorities from taking possession of the
petitioners' lands until lawful procedures for acquisition, compensation
determination, and rehabilitation are properly followed.
2. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer (RDO), Parkal, Hanumakonda District, essentially contending that
the acquisition of lands in Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal,
Hanumakonda District for the construction of National Highway-163G
was conducted strictly in accordance with the National Highways Act,
1956 and the applicable provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
2013. The compensation award issued in Proceedings No. B/85/2021-10-
NH-163G dated 16.01.2024, the notice issued under Section 3G dated
04.02.2023, and the subsequent steps toward taking possession under
Section 3E are lawful actions undertaken after following the full statutory
procedure.
2.1. The respondent explains that the highway project forms part
of a major economic corridor linking several states. Specifically, the
Nagpur-Vijayawada Greenfield alignment was proposed as a component
of the economic corridor under the National Highways programme,
connecting the states of Maharashtra, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh. This
alignment decision was taken during a Land Acquisition Committee
meeting of the headquarters of the concerned highway authority on
03.09.2020, after technical evaluation of site conditions and engineering
parameters, and once such an alignment is approved by the competent
authority of the project proponent, it cannot be arbitrarily altered.
2.2. The respondent further states that the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Parkal, was formally designated as the Competent Authority for
Land Acquisition within the jurisdiction of the Parkal Revenue Division
through Gazette Notification No. 3099 dated 27.08.2019. Following the
requisition submitted by the project authorities, a preliminary notification
under Section 3A of the National Highways Act was issued through
Gazette Notification No. 1102(E) dated 10.03.2021, proposing the
acquisition of lands in ten villages, including Oorugonda, for the
construction of the four-lane access-controlled greenfield highway from
Km 88.418 to Km 111.762. The respondent asserts that the statutory
requirements for publication were fulfilled because the substance of the
notification was published on 25.03.2021 in the newspapers "Mana
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
Telangana" (Telugu) and "The Hindu" (English), which meet the legal
requirement that acquisition notices be published in two newspapers,
including one in a vernacular language.
2.3. The notification invited objections from landowners and
interested persons within 21 days as required under Section 3A(3) of the
Act. In response, a few persons, including the 5thpetitioner, filed objections
under Section 3C within the prescribed period. It is stated that these
objections were duly examined. Notices were issued to the objectors,
hearings were conducted, and the petitioners were given an opportunity to
present their concerns. After considering those objections, the Competent
Authority rejected them through Proceedings No. B/85/2021 dated
20.11.2021 under Section 3C(2) of the Act. Subsequently, the Central
Government issued the declaration of acquisition under Section 3D
through Gazette Notification S.O. No. 1017(E) dated 08.03.2022, thereby
confirming that the land stood acquired for the project.
2.4. Certain landowners filed W.P. No. 5187 of 2023, alleging that
acquisition steps had been taken without obtaining environmental
clearance. This Court initially granted an interim stay on 26.02.2023.
However, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
granted environmental clearance on 05.07.2023. After the environmental
clearance was issued, this Court dismissed the writ petition on 26.09.2023.
Although the petitioners subsequently filed Writ Appeal No. 1190 of 2023,
no interim stay has been granted in that appeal.
2.5. It is stated that while preparing subdivision records prior to
issuing the final declaration under Section 3D, officials discovered that
certain extents of land lying within the approved alignment had been
inadvertently omitted from the original Section 3A notification dated
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
10.03.2021. To rectify this omission, an additional Section 3A notification
was issued through S.O. No. 1905(E) dated 21.04.2022, covering only the
previously omitted land without overlapping the earlier acquisition. After
following the same procedure for objections under Section 3C, further
notifications were issued under Section 3D through S.O. No. 3526(E)
dated 29.07.2022, and the public notice for determination of compensation
under Section 3G was issued through Rc. No. B/85/2021 dated 09.01.2024,
which was published in newspapers on 13.01.2024. The issuance of
additional notifications was a technical correction to include missing
extents within the approved alignment and does not constitute any legal
irregularity.
2.6. Regarding compensation, it is stated that the Competent
Authority passed the main award on 16.01.2024, through Proceedings No.
B/85/2021-10-NH-163G, determining compensation in accordance with
the National Highways Act and the applicable provisions of the 2013 land
acquisition law. The respondent emphasizes that compensation calculations
included statutory benefits such as 100% solatium, 12% additional market
value from the date of the Section 3A notification until the date of the
award, and a multiplication factor of 1.5 applied to the land value, as
required under Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act. It is stated that if any
landowner is dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the aggrieved
party may approach the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, and thereafter challenge the arbitral decision before the
competent District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. It is stated that Arbitrator-cum-District Collector of
Hanumakonda reviewed the compensation rates fixed by the Competent
Authority and enhanced the market value for lands in all ten affected
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
villages, including Oorugonda village, through Appeal No. G/1371/2024-1
dated 17.10.2025. The enhanced compensation amounts have already been
disbursed to landowners who accepted payment. The respondent explains
that differences in compensation rates arose because the original Section
3A notification was issued on 10.03.2021, while the additional Section 3A
notification was issued on 21.04.2022. Since the law requires that market
value be calculated on the basis of sale transactions occurring within three
years preceding the respective notification, different notification dates
inevitably produced different valuation benchmarks. The respondent
argues that such differential rates are legally justified and do not constitute
discrimination.
2.7. It is stated that after obtaining evaluations from various
technical departments--including the Executive Engineer of the MB Intra
Division, Hanumakonda, the District Horticulture and Sericulture Officer,
the District Roads and Buildings Officer, and the District Forest Officer--
the Competent Authority issued a supplementary award on 28.05.2025,
through Proceedings No. B/85/2021-10-NH-163G-Structure, specifically
determining compensation for trees and structures located on the acquired
lands. The respondent therefore denies the allegation that the award was
incomplete. The Removal of Difficulties Order dated 28.08.2015, issued
under the 2013 land acquisition law does not render Section 3G of the
National Highways Act obsolete. Instead, it merely makes certain
provisions of the 2013 Act--particularly those relating to the calculation of
compensation under Sections 26 to 30 and certain limited rehabilitation
benefits--applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act. The
respondent argues that the petitioners are deliberately misinterpreting the
law by claiming that the entire procedural framework of the 2013 Act,
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
including provisions relating to social impact assessments and
rehabilitation schemes under Sections 16 to 18, 21, and 23, must be applied
to highway acquisitions. It is contended that those provisions are not
applicable because highway projects are linear infrastructure projects in
which land acquisition is confined to a narrow Right of Way, typically
causing minimal displacement of affected families. Therefore, large-scale
resettlement and rehabilitation schemes are generally unnecessary.
2.8. It is contended that once a declaration under Section 3D of the
National Highways Act is published in the Gazette, the land vests
absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In the
present case, final declarations were published on 08.03.2022, 29.07.2022,
and 23.08.2023, and that under Section 3D(4)such declarations cannot be
challenged before any court or authority. The respondent further points out
that out of 1,035 total awardees affected by the acquisition, 859
landowners have already accepted the compensation and received
payment, while only the petitioners and a few others have refused to do so.
The respondent therefore alleges that the present writ petition has been
filed with the intention of obstructing or delaying the land acquisition
process rather than addressing any genuine legal grievance, and therefore
the writ petition as devoid of merit.
3. A counter-affidavit is filed by the Project Director of the Project
Implementation Unit, Warangal, on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7
essentially contending that the NHAI initiated a project to construct a four-
lane greenfield national highway between Mancherial and Warangal,
covering the stretch from Km 88.418 to Km 111.762, including lands
situated in Oorugonda Village of Damera Mandal in Hanumakonda
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
District. The project was conceived as a greenfield corridor because it
would shorten travel distance, reduce vehicle operating costs, decrease
travel time, and stimulate economic development in the adjoining regions.
In furtherance of the project, the NHAI submitted a requisition for
acquisition of land under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act.
Acting on that requisition, the competent authority issued a preliminary
acquisition notification through S.O. No. 1102(E) dated 10.03.2021,
proposing acquisition of lands including those belonging to the petitioners.
The substance of this notification was published in the newspapers Mana
Telangana (Telugu) and The Hindu (English) on 25.03.2021, thereby
inviting objections from landowners within the statutory period of 21
days.The respondent asserts that no objections were received within the
stipulated period under Section 3C following publication of the
notification. Consequently, the Central Government issued the declaration
of acquisition under Section 3D through S.O. No. 1017(E) dated
08.03.2022, which legally vested the land in the Central Government free
from all encumbrances. Once a declaration under Section 3D is published,
the land automatically vests in the government and cannot be encumbered
by private claims. Subsequently, environmental clearance for the project
was granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
on 05.07.2023, thereby removing any regulatory impediment to the
project's execution.
3.1. As required under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways
Act, a public notice dated 15.02.2023 was published in the newspapers
Mana Telangana and The Hindu, calling upon interested persons to appear
before the Revenue Divisional Officer acting as the Competent Authority
for Land Acquisition and to submit documentary evidence of their claims.
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
The notice required landowners to appear before the authority on
06.03.2023 during office hoursfor the purpose of establishing title and
claiming compensation. After conducting the statutory award enquiry, the
Competent Authority passed the compensation award through Proceedings
No. B/85/2021-10-NH-163G dated 16.01.2024.
3.2. The compensation determined in the award was calculated
strictly in accordance with the statutory framework. The award
incorporated benefits mandated by the RFCTLARR Act, including 100%
solatium, 12% additional market value calculated from the date of
publication of the Section 3A notification until the date of the award, and a
1.5 multiplication factor applied to the land value. The respondent further
states that the compensation amount determined under the award has
already been deposited by the NHAI with the competent authority as
required under Section 3H of the National Highways Act. The respondent
also indicates that a supplementary award would be passed for valuation of
structures such as trees and borewells after completion of the necessary
departmental assessments. It is stated that additional Section 3A
notification was issued only to cover missing extents of land that were
inadvertently left out of the earlier notification and did not overlap with
previously notified land. The respondent further rejects the allegation that
the newspapers used for publication lacked sufficient circulation, stating
that publication in two newspapers--one vernacular and one English--
fully satisfies the statutory requirement under the National Highways Act.
3.3. The respondent also denies the petitioners' allegation that the
Section 3D notification dated 08.03.2022 was based on an invalid report or
that objections were not properly considered. The respondent disputes the
petitioners' argument that Section 3G of the National Highways Act has
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
ceased to operate due to the Removal of Difficulties Order dated
28.08.2015 issued under the 2013 land acquisition law. The respondent
asserts that only certain compensation-related provisions of the
RFCTLARR Act--specifically Sections 26 to 30 relating to calculation of
compensation and the schedules relating to rehabilitation in limited
circumstances--are applicable to acquisitions under the National
Highways Act.
3.4. With regard to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under
the Second and Third Schedules of the RFCTLARR Act, it is contended
that such benefits apply only where land acquisition results in
displacement or relocation of affected families. In the present case, the
respondent asserts that the acquisition involves only a limited strip of land
within the Right of Way (RoW) required for a highway project, as highway
projects are linear infrastructure projects, where the RoW typically ranges
between 15 meters for a two-lane highway and up to about 100 meters for
an expressway, while for four-lane, six-lane, or eight-lane highways the
RoW generally varies between 45 meters and 70 meters. Because such
acquisitions usually involve only small portions of land rather than entire
properties, the respondent contends that displacement and resettlement of
families rarely occurs. In the present case, the respondent asserts that the
petitioners have neither been relocated nor resettled and therefore do not
fall within the statutory definition of a displaced familyunder Section 3(k)
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Consequently, they are not entitled to the
rehabilitation and resettlement benefits claimed in the writ petition. It is
contended that the interim orders granted in other writ petitions--
particularly W.P. No. 9909 of 2024--cannot automatically extend to the
present petitioners. The respondent also denies allegations that officials or
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
police threatened the petitioners or interfered with their cultivation,
asserting that these claims are unsupported by evidence.
3.5. It is contended that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded on 16.01.2024, they may approach the designated
arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. If still
aggrieved by the arbitrator's decision, they may pursue further relief before
the jurisdictional District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent therefore argues that the writ
petition is inappropriate because the petitioners have bypassed the
specialized remedy provided under the statute. It is contended that
continued delay of project will increase expenditure on labor and materials
and may also expose the NHAI to contractual penalties. Since the project
serves a national infrastructure objective and benefits the general public,
the respondent argues that the balance of convenience lies strongly in favor
of allowing the project to proceed.
4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners denying the respondent's
claim that the compensation award dated 16.01.2024 was passed strictly in
accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956. They contend that the
award itself demonstrates procedural violations because it did not include
valuation or compensation for structures and trees, nor did it include
rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements. The petitioners further point
out that the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector of Hanumakonda
subsequently enhanced the market value of the land to nearly double the
amount determined by the Competent Authority, which they argue proves
that the original compensation determination was arbitrary and inconsistent
with the statutory framework.
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
4.1. The petitioners also challenge the respondent's assertion that
the highway alignment, once approved by the National Highways
Authority of India, cannot be altered. They argue that accepting such a
proposition would render meaningless the statutory right under Section 3C
of the National Highways Act that allows landowners to file objections and
be heard regarding the use of their land.
4.2. With respect to the enquiry conducted on objections filed by
affected landowners, the petitioners contend that the process violated the
principles of natural justice. They state that the disposal order passed by
the authority indicates a pre-determined and biased approach, lacking
impartial application of mind. Moreover, the petitioners claim that copies
of the disposal order were never communicated to them either before or
after issuance of the Section 3D declaration, thereby depriving them of a
fair opportunity to challenge the decision.
4.3. The petitioners contend that respondents themselves admitted
that the mandatory environmental clearance had not been obtained prior to
the issuance of the Section 3D declaration, which formally vests the land in
the Central Government. The petitioners state that this issue is presently
pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, thus the
legality of the acquisition declaration itself remains under judicial scrutiny.
4.4. The petitioners also argue that the respondents' own
admissions reveal that the initial Section 3A notification dated 10.03.2021
did not cover all lands falling within the proposed alignment, and this
indicates lack of due diligence and failure to follow the prescribed
guidelines. They further state that the subsequent Section 3A
notificationissued to cover missing extents of land was not properly
communicated to the affected landowners. In particular, the authorities
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
allegedly failed to provide local-level notice--such as publication at the
Gram Panchayator through personal notices--relying solely on newspaper
publication. The petitioners maintain that such limited publication deprived
many affected persons of meaningful opportunity to raise objections.
Further, Section 3E possession notices were issued in 2023, even though
the award for structures and trees was passed only in 2025, and the
rehabilitation award has not yet been issued. According to them, initiating
possession proceedings before completing the full award process violates
the statutory scheme. They emphasize that the supplementary award
passed in May 2025 for structures further demonstrates that the original
award dated 16.01.2024was incomplete and therefore invalid.
4.5. The petitioners contend that the Removal of Difficulties
Order, 2015 dated 28.08.2015 requires application of certain provisions
relating to rehabilitation and resettlement, and the respondents have failed
to provide any legal justification for excluding provisions such as Sections
16, 17, 18, 21, and 23, which deal with identification of affected families
and preparation of rehabilitation schemes. The petitioners further argue
that the authorities failed to correctly determine the market value of the
land in accordance with Section 26 of the 2013 Act. They point out that the
Competent Authority relied on market values prevailing as on 10.03.2021,
taken from the Sub-Registrar's market value register. However, the
petitioners contend that these values were not revised in the State from
2013 until 30.06.2021, thereby the values used in the award did not reflect
the true prevailing market rates. They also highlight that for awards issued
during the same month under a later notification, entirely different market
values--more than double the earlier figures--were applied. According to
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
the petitioners, this inconsistency demonstrates arbitrariness and renders
the award legally unsustainable.
4.6. The petitioners state that entitlements under the Second
Schedule of the 2013 Act are applicable to affected families. The fact that a
supplementary award for structures was issued more than a year after the
main awardfurther reinforces their contention that the acquisition process
was incomplete and flawed.
5. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners;
learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, learned Standing Counsel for
CALA,and Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition
proceedings were earlier challenged in WP No.5187 of 2023 on the ground
that environmental clearance was not obtained prior to issuance of the
declaration under Section 3D of the NH Act, 1956, and though interim
orders were initially granted, the writ petition was later dismissed and Writ
Appeal No.1190 of 2023 is pending without interim relief; that some
adjoining landowners have separately challenged the Section 3A and 3D
notifications in WP No.10431 of 2024 and obtained interim protection,
leading the petitioners to reasonably believe that the authorities would not
interfere with their possession until final adjudication; that the petitioners
received copies of the Award proceedings only in February 2025; that
multiple notifications under Sections 3A and 3D were issued without
specifying survey numbers, landowner-wise extents, plans, or maps, and
the order under Section 3C dated 20.11.2021 was not communicated to the
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
petitioners; that the petitioners came to know about the multiple
notifications only through the NHAI website and were unaware of the
environmental clearance for nearly a year until public notices appeared in
newspapers; that Section 3G of the NH Act, 1956, relating to determination
of compensation, is no longer operative in view of the RFCTLARR
(Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015 issued under Section 105(3) of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and therefore the provisions of the 2013 Act apply
to acquisitions under the National Highways Act; that consequently,
compensation and rehabilitation benefits ought to have been determined in
accordance with Sections 16 to 18, 21 to 30, 23 and 31 of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013 and not under Section 3G of the National Highways Act; that the
competent authority failed to revise or update the market value of the
acquired land as required under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act prior to
issuance of the Section 3A notification; that two different rates were
adopted while passing the award in January 2024; that the expressions
"amount" and "compensation" used in Sections 3G and 3H of the National
Highways Act include compensation for land, structures, and rehabilitation
entitlements to affected families; that though the petitioners may not be
displaced, they remain an affected family entitled to rehabilitation benefits;
that possession of the land cannot be taken unless complete compensation
including valuation of trees and structures and determination of
rehabilitation entitlements is finalized; that the award proceedings are
unsustainable as compensation for structures and trees has not been
determined and therefore the notice under Section 3E of the National
Highways Act is also liable to be set aside; that the competent authority
ought to have issued notice under Section 21 of the RFCTLARR Act and
conducted award enquiry under Section 23 after following the procedure
under Sections 16 to 18 for identification of eligible persons and
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
preparation of a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme instead of
proceeding under Section 3G of the National Highways Act; that despite
representations expressing unwillingness to part with the land and pointing
out the illegality in the acquisition and compensation determination, the
authorities in June-July 2025 attempted to mark the petitioner's land with
police assistance and threatened the petitioner not to cultivate the land
despite the existence of standing crops, thereby compelling the petitioner
to approach this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitionersrelies on:
1) Akkala Chandrakala v. The State of Telangana 1;
2) Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah 2;
3) B.K. Ravichandra v. Union of India3;
4) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai 4;
5) K. Ramachandram v. State of Telangana5;
6) Madi Satyavati v. State of Telangana6;
7) Manorama Devi v. National Highways Authority of India7;
8) Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao 8;
9) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju alias
Cheluvaiah 9;
10)Ranivr Singh v. National Highways Authority of India 10;
11) Union of India v. Shiv Raj 11;
W.P. No. 11486 of 2024 (Telangana High Court)
(2024) 10 SCC 533
(2021) 14 SCC 703
(2005) 7 SCC 627
W.P. No. 23939 of 2013 (Telangana High Court)
W.A. No. 676 of 2023 (Telangana High Court)
Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:240588 - DB (Allahabad High Court)
(1973) 1 SCC 500
(2022) 15 SCC 1
2023 SCC OnLine All 5276
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
12) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh 12
7.1. In Akkala Chandrakala (supra), this Courtconsidered a
dispute over land acquisition for the development of National Highway
765DG. The petitioners, whose homes were being acquired, sought
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, while government authorities argued that such
benefits were not applicable to the road-widening project under the
National Highways Act, 1956. This Court, by interim order dated
12.11.2024, rejected the authorities' prayer to vacate an earlier stay order
and indicated that highway acquisitions remain subject to modern R&R
protections, and granted status quo until final hearing, while allowing
authorities to begin the formal process of determining and awarding R&R
compensation.
7.2. In Bimal Kumar Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
broadened the understanding of the constitutional right to property under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India by stating that lawful land
acquisition requires more than just public purpose and compensation. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court identified seven essential procedural sub-rights--
including the right to notice, the right to be heard, and the right to a
reasoned decision--along with requirements for an efficient process and
fair rehabilitation. Ruling against the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the
Supreme Court held that any State action that ignores these safeguards is
invalid.
(2014) 6 SCC 564
1963 SCC OnLine SC 23
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
7.3. In B.K. Ravichandra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarified the limits of Government power over private property. The
Supreme Court held that although the right to property is no longer a
fundamental right, it remains a constitutional safeguard under Article 300-
A of the Constitution of India, protecting both physical land and intangible
assets, and the government cannot occupy private land indefinitely without
proper legal authority, as prolonged possession amounts to unlawful
deprivation of property. Emphasizing the rule of law, the Court rejected
any notion that the State can act with "royal prerogative" and insisted that
all State actions must be backed by clear statutory authority. As a result,
the Court ordered the return of land that had been held by the government
for over thirty years and directed that fair compensation be paid to the
rightful owners.
7.4. In Darius Shapur Chenai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court examined the procedural safeguards required under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 during the acquisition of private property. The
Supreme Court focused on whether the State had genuinely considered the
landowner's objections as required under Section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. It held that the right to object and be heard under
Section 5-A is a significant safeguard--comparable in importance to a
fundamental right--and must involve a real and careful consideration by
the government rather than a mere formality. The Court further ruled that
when such decisions are challenged, the government must produce its
records to demonstrate that a fair decision-making process was followed.
Since the State failed to provide adequate evidence or a proper counter-
affidavit, the Court upheld the quashing of the acquisition, reinforcing that
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
laws allowing the taking of private property must be strictly interpreted to
prevent arbitrary state action.
7.5. In K. Ramachandram(supra), this Courtexamined whether
the government had followed the required statutory procedures while
attempting to acquire the petitioner's land; and held that although the
preliminary notification remained valid because it had been properly
extended, the later declaration was unlawful due to the authorities' failure
to prepare and publish mandatory rehabilitation and resettlement schemes
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Finding that these
procedural safeguards are essential to protect the landowner's rights, the
declaration was quashed with a direction to the government to strictly
comply with the Act if it wishes to proceed with the acquisition, while also
encouraging both parties to pursue an amicable settlement through land
exchange or fair monetary compensation.
7.6. In Madi Satyavati v. State of Telangana 13, the Division
Bench of this Court dealt with a matter pertaining to land acquisition for a
railway project; and held that not only the mother, but also her three
daughters, qualify as an affected family under Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013; and modified a prior order to ensure that rehabilitation benefits
are determined for the daughters in addition to the mother's solatium and
allowed the appellants to seek a formal reference if they are dissatisfied
with the final monetary compensation, reinforcing that the rights of all
affected family members must be recognized in land acquisition cases.
W.A. No. 676 of 2023 (Telangana High Court)
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
7.7. In Manorama Devi (supra), the Allahabad High Court
adjudicated a petition filed by Manorma Devi against the National
Highway Authority of India. The Allahabad High Court addressed her
claim for rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, which she had not
received despite being compensated for her land. The Court observed that
her grievance aligned with previous cases under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, where affected landowners were entitled to
additional support. It directed the authorities to prepare a formal proposal
within six months to provide the petitioner with entitlements for housing,
employment, and relocation as outlined in the Second Schedule of the Act,
and granted legal relief consistent with earlier, similar judgments.
7.8. In Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court examined whether the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act
violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by allowing the State to
acquire property at lower compensation rates than standard national laws.
The Supreme Court held that the Government cannot justify paying
different amounts for similar lands based solely on which authority
conducts the acquisition or the stated public purpose. Emphasizing the
principle of equal protection, the judgment affirmed that landowners are
entitled to consistent, market-value compensation regardless of the
acquiring body, and dismissed the appeal, ruling that discriminatory
treatment in compensation or statutory bonuses is unconstitutional.
7.9. In P. Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court addressed the determination of fair compensation and
clarified the role of Courts in reviewing arbitral awards under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
an arbitrator's failure to provide adequate and intelligible reasoning for
compensation constitutes a ground of "patent illegality," justifying judicial
intervention. Emphasizing equitable treatment for landowners, including
solatium and interest, the ruling aligned compensation practices with
constitutional protections and remanded the matter for recalculation of the
property's market value using proper evidence and updated guideline rates.
7.10. In Ranivr Singh (supra), the Allahabad High Court
addressed petitions by displaced families who claimed that the National
Highway Authority of India had failed to provide mandatory rehabilitation
and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. The Court held that the status of affected families must be properly
assessed, rejecting the authorities' contention that linear road projects
cause minimal disruption. It directed the competent authority to conduct a
thorough inquiry and submit a resettlement proposal to the District
Collector, ensuring that eligible landowners receive entitlements such as
housing units, employment opportunities, or relocation allowances as part
of their compensation.
7.11. In Shiv Raj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Courtconsidered
the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The Supreme Court highlighted procedural lapses, including
violations of natural justice where objections were heard by one official
but the final report was issued by another without a fresh hearing. It also
examined the impact of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on older
cases where the government delayed possession or failed to provide
compensation for over five years.
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
7.12. InSinghara Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
addressed the admissibility of oral testimony regarding a defendant's
confession, arising from a Second-Class Magistrate's failure to follow
procedures under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI contends that the competent
authority awarded adequate and lawful compensation to the petitioners in
accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956 and the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013; that the Respondent No.4-CALA passed awards dated
05.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 in Proceedings No. B/85/2021-08-NH-163G
after considering objections and providing opportunity of hearing to all
concerned, and the compensation amounts were received by the petitioners
except petitioner Nos. 4 and 6; that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the
determination of compensation, they have an efficacious alternative
remedy under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act by approaching the Arbitration-
cum-District Collector and any challenge to the arbitral award lies before
the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996; that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of a displaced
family under Section 3(k) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 as they have
neither been relocated nor resettled from the affected area; that the
petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing
displacement or loss of livelihood so as to qualify as an "affected family"
under Section 3(c) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 or to claim benefits under
the Second and Third Schedules of the said Act; that only a portion of the
petitioners' land has been acquired and the remaining land continues to be
available for their livelihood, thereby negating any claim of deprivation of
livelihood; that where substantial monetary compensation has been
awarded, the landowners can utilize such compensation for acquiring
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
alternative land or assets and therefore cannot insist on rehabilitation or
resettlement benefits; that even otherwise, the petitioners failed to raise
specific objections before the competent authority demonstrating that the
compensation awarded was insufficient to enable rehabilitation or
resettlement; that any claim for rehabilitation or resettlement requires
cogent evidence demonstrating that the compensation determined is
grossly inadequate to secure such rehabilitation; that entitlement to benefits
under the Second Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act arises only when the
competent authority certifies that the family has been displaced or
dislocated, which is not the case here; that preparation of a Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) report is not mandatory for acquisitions under the
National Highways Act, 1956; that the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, particularly those relating to Social Impact Assessment and
rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapter II, do not automatically
apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act unless specifically
extended by notification under Section 105 of the Act of 2013, and no such
notification applies in the present case; that since only part of the
petitioners' land has been acquired and they have not been dislocated, there
is no requirement to frame a rehabilitation and resettlement scheme; that
injunction against an infrastructure project is barred under Section 20-A of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963; that the present project is a public
infrastructure project of national importance and cannot be stalled, and
therefore the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged merely on the
ground of dissatisfaction with the compensation, particularly when an
effective statutory remedy for enhancement of compensation is available
under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act.
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the Competent Authority for Land
Acquisition (CALA) contends that environmental clearance for the project
was obtained on 05.07.2023 vide File No.10/29/2021-IA-III and the
additional notification under Section 3A of the NH Act, 1956 was issued
only for the purpose of covering certain missing structures; that the
competent authority passed awards dated 05.01.2024 and 31.01.2024
determining compensation for the acquired lands and subsequently passed
a supplementary award dated 11.11.2025 determining compensation for
structures; that several landowners who were aggrieved by the
compensation approached the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector under
Section 3G(5) of the NHActand the arbitrator revised the market value and
enhanced compensation through awards dated 09.05.2025, 23.07.2025,
04.08.2025 and 23.10.2025; that the provisions of Sections 16 to 18, 21
and 23 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are not applicable to acquisitions
under the National Highways Act as the project is a linear infrastructure
project where the affected area is confined to the right of way and therefore
identification of eligibility for rehabilitation benefits and preparation of a
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is not mandatory; that benefits
under the Second Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act can be claimed only
when the competent authority certifies that the petitioner's family has been
displaced or dislocated from the area; that objections filed under Section
3C of the National Highways Act were duly received and disposed of and
additional notifications were issued only to acquire certain missing extents
of land, following which notification under Section 3D was issued and the
land vested with the Central Government free from all encumbrances; that
out of 1035 landowners whose lands were acquired or are in the process of
acquisition, 859 landowners have already received compensation and only
the petitioner and a few others have not accepted the amount; that the
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
petitioner has raised untenable objections and approached this Court with
the intention of stalling the land acquisition process; that Section 3G of the
NHAct continues to govern determination of compensation for lands
acquired under the Act, while only the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013 relating to determination of compensation under the First Schedule
and Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits under the Second Schedule
are applicable to such acquisitions, and therefore the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed.
10. Learned Additional Solicitor General relies on several judgments in
support of his contention that a writ remedy is not maintainable in the
instant case; particularly on Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of
Maharashtra 14 and contends that the Courts have to weigh the public
interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power and there
are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong, and
that quashing of acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress.
10.1. He also relies on Nerajala Nageswara Rao v. Union of
India15, to contend that alternative remedy harsh one should not be
resorted in public purpose projects and larger public purpose prevails over
individual interest. He also relies on N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar
Jain16, to contend that construction of road is an infrastructure project and
keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects
should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold
its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project.
1997 (1) SCC 134
2017 SCC Online Hyd 250
2022 (6) SCC 127
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
10.2. He also relies on Bluepark Seafoods (P) Ltd v. District
Collector17 and contends that in case of acquisition for benefit of general
public, the landowner can stake claim for reasonable compensation and
nothing beyond that. Relying on NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Company
Ltd 18, it is contended that National Highways Act is a special enactment
and a comprehensive code which provides an inbuilt mechanism for
initiating acquisition until culmination of the proceedings in determining
the compensation and its adjudication by arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of
the NH Act.
10.3. He also relies on the judgment of the High Court of
Karnataka, at Bengaluru, in W.P.No.10103 of 2020 (LA-RES) and
batch, dated 19.07.2022, and contends that in the said case, the High
Court of Karnataka has set aside the awards passed by the CALA and
directed the authority to redetermine the compensation afresh, and if the
parties are aggrieved by the fresh awards passed by the CALA, the parties
can approach the arbitrator.
10.4. He also relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M/s Tirupati Developers v. The Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli19, and contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the
Collector to give one opportunity to the appellant therein to submit its
objections, followed by personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate
award after holding inquiry under Section 23 of the RTCTLARR Act, and
therefore similar dispensation attracts in the present writ petition in view of
similarity of facts.
2011 SCC OnLine AP 267
(2020) 15 SCC 161
Civil Appeal No.4952 of 2023, dated August 7, 2023
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
11. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the
record, it may be noted that the grievance of the petitioners essentially is
that multiple notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the National
Highways Act were issued with incomplete information, inadequate
publication, and without providing proper landowner-wise details, maps, or
an effective opportunity to file objections with regard to the acquisition of
their agricultural lands for the proposed four-lane National Highway-163G,
and that their objections were not properly considered. It is also contended
that the authorities proceeded with the declaration and award process even
before obtaining environmental clearance, issued additional notifications
without informing the affected landowners, and passed incomplete
compensation awards without determining compensation for structures and
trees, and without granting rehabilitation and resettlement benefits as
required under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the Removal of Difficulties
Order, 2015. They also allege discriminatory and outdated valuation of
land, denial of statutory entitlements, and attempts by the authorities to
forcibly take possession of their lands without paying lawful
compensation, thereby threatening their livelihood as small and marginal
farmers. It is also their grievance that the compensation cannot be confined
only to the land on the mere ground that the land is an agricultural extent,
and that compensation should also be granted for the structures existing on
the land, and rehabilitation and resettlement benefits should be extended to
the petitioners.
11.1. On the contrary, the essential contention of the respondents
(NHAI and CALA authorities) is that the acquisition of the petitioners'
land for the construction of the four-lane National Highway-163G
(Mancherial-Warangal Greenfield Corridor) has been carried out strictly in
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the National Highways
Act, 1956 and the applicable provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and
that all statutory steps--issuance of notifications under Sections 3A and
3D, consideration of objections under Section 3C, conduct of enquiry, and
passing of compensation awards under Section 3G--were duly followed.
According to them, adequate opportunity was given to the landowners, and
compensation has been determined and deposited as per law. It is also their
contention that the entire village or villages have not been acquired,
requiring the villagers, along with their houses, cattle, and livelihood, to be
shifted/relocated to an alternative location, or re-establish the village at
some other place entirely; but only such extent of land(s) that is under
alignment would go into the highway project, and only such limited
extents of land(s) were acquired, and therefore there cannot be any
contentions of displacement of persons requiring rehabilitation and
resettlement under the RFCTLARR Act because they are not "displaced
families". It is contended that any grievance regarding compensation must
be pursued through the statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5)
of the National Highways Act rather than through a writ petition, and the
petitioners' allegations are unfounded. They further contend that the
interim order restraining the project may be vacated since it delays a
project of national importance and public interest.
12. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the project concerns the laying
of a four-lane National Highway (Mancherial-Warangal Greenfield
Corridor), and that land acquisition has been undertaken for the said
highway. In land acquisition for a National Highway of this nature,
connecting highways across States, the acquisition process or the laying of
the highway per se cannot be stalled indefinitely by taking recourse to the
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Ultimately, the sole grievance that
can be agitated by the aggrieved persons is confined to the compensatory
benefits in lieu of the lands acquired, which is pecuniary in nature.
12.1 Further, the petitioners' grievance with regard to entitlement
to compensation for structures, trees, standing crops, or even alternative
rehabilitation/resettlement benefits is also justiciable, provided such
structures are legally permitted, and the CALA has certified that the
structures/crops, etc., have been affected in the land acquisition process, in
a way that resettlement and rehabilitation is necessary.
12.2 Be that as it may, in land acquisition for a public purpose,
unless there are proven malafides, neither is the acquisition liable to be set
aside, nor can the opinion of experts--either with regard to the alignment
of the highway or with regard to the determination of factual aspects such
as the extent of land acquired and the monetary compensation payable--be
substituted by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
13. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty 20, wherein it
was held as follows:
"24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a
professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the
field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The
projects involving construction of new highways and widening
and development of the existing highways, which are vital for
development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to
experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having
vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development
(2011) 12 SCC 69
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating
to development and maintenance of National Highways after
thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project
reports are prepared keeping in view the relevant factors including
intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The
Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and
feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular
alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such
matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can
nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the
particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the
mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides."
14. Further, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.774 of 2024, dated
07.08.2024, which is an appeal filed challenging a Notification for laying a
national highway. The Hon'ble Division Bench, by referring to various
precedent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly
Kushala Shetty (supra), held as follows:
"12. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the
projects involving construction of new highways and widening
and development of existing highways are vital for development of
infrastructure of the country. The projects have been entrusted to
the experts in the field of highways and it comprises of persons
having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway
development and maintenance. The NHAI is implementing the
project relating to development and maintenance after thorough
study by experts.
13. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of the notification
issued under the Act, award has already been passed on
10.05.2022 and petitioners No.8 and 11 in W.P.No.24150 of 2021
have even received the compensation. The project is virtually
complete except for a small stretch."
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
15. In this connection, it is to be noted that under Section 3G of the
National Highways Act, determination of compensation is entrusted to the
Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA). Significantly, Section
3G(5) expressly provides that where the amount determined by the
Competent Authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the matter
shall, on application, be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central
Government--ordinarily the District Collector. Thus, the statute itself
creates a complete adjudicatory mechanism for redressal of disputes
relating to compensation.
16. Further, once the Arbitrator renders an award under Section 3G(5) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, such award is governed by the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and the persons
aggrieved by the arbitral award has a further statutory remedy under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the competent
Civil Court.
17. Though the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, its invocation
comes with the rider that there should be exceptional circumstances,
warranting invocation under Article 226 bypassing the statutory remedy. In
this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks 21, wherein
the Supreme Court held as follows:
"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having
regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not
1998 (8) SCC 1
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon
itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally
exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least
three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed
for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where
there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or
where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or
the vires of an Act is challenged."
18. In the instant writ petition, this Court does not find any violation of
fundamental rights per se, or any violation of the principles of natural
justice, or any jurisdictional error on the part of the respondent authorities;
nor does the writ petition challenge the vires of the Act passed by the
competent authority. Further, it is the specific unrebutted contention of the
respondents, borne out by the record, that out of 1035 landowners whose
lands were acquired or in process of acquisition, 859 landowners have
already received compensation; thereby roughly 83% of persons have
received the compensation.
19. The grievance of the petitioners is about (i) determination of
compensation under the awards dated 05.01.2024 and 31.01.2024, (ii)
alleged improper calculation of market value, multiplication factor,
solatium, and other statutory components, and (iii) alleged inadequate
grant of certain benefits under the RFCTLARR framework as applied to
acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.
wp_26406_2025
NBK, J
20. Though the petitioners contend that they are entitled to certain
rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, it cannot be disputed that the
competent authority should have certified that the affected landowner has
been displaced. Furthermore, the petitioners have a two-step statutory
remedy, one under the National Highways Act, 1956 and, if still aggrieved,
the second under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and therefore
the petitioners are not remediless.
21. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kushala
Shetty (supra), and Whirlpool Corporation (supra), and also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.774 of 2024, dated
07.08.2024, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstances to
entertain the writ petition bypassing the statutory arbitration mechanism
provided under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the
petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the
National Highways Act, 1956 and thereafter, if necessary, under Section
34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No costs. Interim order
dated 09.09.2025 stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
07thApril, 2026
ksm
