Kuthumbaka Naresh vs The Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 419 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kuthumbaka Naresh 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. 9109 OF 2024

                          07.04.2026
Between:

Kuthumbaka Naresh & others
                                                   ..... Petitioners
And

The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
                                                 ..... Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioners contend that the Union Government has

proposed a Greenfield Highway project from Nagpur in the State

of Maharashtra to Amaravathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh in

2019 and the said Highway, while proceeding towards

Vijayawada, is proposed to pass through Khammam Municipal

Corporation area, including V. Venkatayapalem village and

adjoining regions. Though respondents claim to have considered

three alternative alignments, the impugned alignment, namely

Option-1, which is closest to Khammam city, has been selected

arbitrarily, despite the existence of alternative alignments to the

East and extreme East, and the selected alignment intersects

the 100 feet Wyra Road, which is a major State Highway and a

principal road within Khammam city, passing through highly

commercial areas, Government offices and educational

institutions. The successive Gazette Notifications issued under

Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the

Act'), namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021, S.O. 3563(E)

dated 29.07.2022 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024, were

issued without complying with the mandatory requirement

under Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the brief

particulars of lands to be acquired, their extent and ownership

details were not furnished, thereby rendering the notifications

illegal and depriving the land losers of their right to raise

effective objections.

1.1. Petitioners further contend that the impugned

notification is the third in succession and that repeated

issuance of such notifications, without curing defects and

without adhering to statutory requirements, is impermissible in

law, particularly when earlier notifications have lapsed by efflux

of time. The land-losers in and around Khammam have been

agitating against the impugned alignment, and the District

Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to

the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary, Government of

Telangana, had categorically requested for change of alignment,

pointing out various factual and developmental aspects on

ground. The State Government had already planned a ring road

for Khammam city pursuant to G.O. Rt. No. 182 dated

18.04.2016 issued by the Transport, Roads and Buildings

Department, and had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 208 Crores

for land acquisition, and accordingly had acquired land in 2018

by paying compensation of Rs. 1 crore per acre for construction

of the Integrated District Collectorate.

1.2. Petitioners also contend that due to such

developments, the lands surrounding the Collectorate have

become highly commercial, and several residential colonies,

schools and colleges have come up within a 10 Km stretch of

the Khammam ring road, and despite such significant

developments, the respondents have fixed the impugned

alignment without knowledge or consultation with Khammam

Municipal Corporation, Roads and Buildings Department, Gram

Panchayats and other local bodies. The District Collector had

also brought to the notice of the respondents that the cost of

land acquisition under the impugned alignment would be

substantially higher in view of the development and

compensation already paid at Rs. 1 crore per acre, yet the said

representation was rejected by the respondents without

assigning cogent or detailed reasons.

1.3. Petitioners also contend that respondents have

deliberately withheld the names of land owners and particulars

of land in the notification, with an intention to conceal the

identity of influential persons whose lands are being benefited,

while small land owners are adversely affected, thereby acting in

a manner lacking transparency and fairness. In the absence of

necessary particulars as mandated under Section 3A(2), the

affected land owners are left without any meaningful

opportunity to raise objections, thereby violating the principles

of natural justice and rendering the entire process arbitrary.

Petitioners also contend that respondents indulged in

disinformation and misinformation, and have proceeded in

haste and secrecy to benefit certain influential persons,

disregarding the safety of human life and the property rights of

small land owners. The reply furnished by the 5th Respondent

under the Right to Information Act vide letter dated 08.02.2024

reveals that the alignment was proposed on 03.01.2019 and

approved by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, yet

all stakeholders including land losers, local authorities and the

general public were kept in the dark until issuance of

notification under Section 3A(1), which is contrary to statutory

requirements and established guidelines mandating prior

consultation.

1.4. Petitioners also contend that the Environmental

Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Highways issued by

the Ministry of Environment and Forests mandates that road

alignment should avoid passing close to housing, schools and

hospitals in order to mitigate air pollution, and the impugned

alignment is in direct violation of such guidelines. The

impugned alignment passes within 500 meters of the District

Collectorate, where approximately 1500 employees work and an

equal number of public visit daily, and also near Harvest Public

School accommodating approximately 3000 students, and V.

Venkatayapalem Gram Panchayat with a population of about

6000, thereby exposing large populations to severe air pollution

hazards.

1.5. Petitioners also contend that Environmental Impact

Assessment Guidance Manual further prescribes development of

bypass roads to avoid alignment through noise sensitive areas,

and the impugned alignment, instead of providing a bypass,

passes through such sensitive zones including courts

functioning within the Collectorate, thereby violating prescribed

norms relating to noise pollution. The only viable solution in

such circumstances would be construction of a bypass road,

which the respondents have failed to consider, thereby acting in

disregard of environmental safeguards. Petitioners also contend

that the respondents have completely deviated from the

requirement of pre-application public consultation as mandated

under the Environmental Impact Assessment framework, and

have instead conducted selective and limited interactions with a

few individuals without proper public participation.

1.6. Petitioners further contend that despite continuous

agitations by affected land owners and social organizations for

nearly two years, the respondents have ignored such objections

and proceeded in a prejudiced manner. The post-environmental

clearance requirements including wide publicity of

Environmental Clearance Certificates as mandated for Category

"A" projects, have not been complied with, and no

advertisements or public disclosures have been made,

indicating clandestine conduct on the part of the respondents.

It is contended, Notification dated 26.02.2018 issued by the

Ministry of Road Transport & Highways mandates that

Greenfield Highway alignments should follow a crow-flight route

with minimal deviation and should avoid proximity to human

habitations, which has been completely ignored in the present

case.

1.7. Petitioners also contend that the impugned

alignment passes through V Venkatayapalem village, District

Collectorate, educational institutions and Khammam Municipal

Corporation area, and was fixed without consultation with local

authorities or stakeholders, contrary to prescribed guidelines.

The report of the DPR Consultant, namely ENVIRO INFRA

SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., recommending Option-1 is cryptic,

lacks detailed reasoning, and does not provide comparative data

between alternative options, thereby rendering the selection

arbitrary and perfunctory. The consultant has merely referred to

"some" or "more" felling of trees without providing quantitative

or qualitative analysis, and has failed to provide comparable

data for alternative routes, thereby vitiating the decision-making

process. The alternative alignment, namely Option-2, is

straighter, connects Suryapet to Vijayawada National Highway

at Kodad, and is approximately 100 km. shorter, thereby saving

substantial public expenditure, yet the respondents have

arbitrarily selected the longer and curved Option-1, which also

crosses river Muneru twice.

1.8. Petitioners also contend that such selection of

alignment is actuated by vested interests to benefit certain

persons in power. The reply dated 26.10.2021 furnished under

the Right to Information Act is cryptic and evasive, as it does

not disclose the relevant High Court order or details thereof,

thereby indicating deliberate suppression of information.

Respondents are bound to follow all statutory provisions, rules,

regulations and guidelines, and cannot claim immunity on the

ground of expertise in determining highway alignments. The

impugned notification is illegal for violation of Section 3A(2) of

the Act, irregular for violation of the Notification dated

26.02.2018, and contrary to Environmental Impact Assessment

Guidelines relating to air pollution, noise pollution and public

consultation. Respondents have unjustifiably ignored the

recommendations of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022,

and have failed to provide a bypass road for Khammam city,

despite providing such bypasses for smaller villages. It is

contended, respondents ought not to have selected Option-1,

which is closest to human habitations and institutions, and

ought to have selected Option-III or other alternatives to

minimize impact and reduce acquisition costs.

1.9. Petitioners also contend that respondents have

acted in haste and secrecy by publishing notifications in lesser-

known newspapers such as Hans India and Mana Telangana,

thereby limiting public awareness. The repeated issuance of

Section 3A(1) notifications after lapse of earlier notifications is

impermissible, and defeats the purpose of statutory time limits,

which are intended to prevent prolonged uncertainty and to

ensure consideration of ground realities. Due to such repeated

notifications and prolonged process since January 2019, the

land owners have been subjected to severe hardship,

uncertainty and mental agony for nearly five years. Petitioners

therefore, contend that the impugned notification is liable to be

quashed and appropriate directions be issued restraining the

respondents from proceeding further, and that interim

suspension of the notification dated 26.02.2024 is warranted

pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

2. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the

allegations made by Petitioners that the impugned Notification

is in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Guidance Manual for Highways are incorrect and denied, and

submits that the impugned project has been processed strictly

in accordance with the statutory framework governing

environmental protection. Under clause (v) of sub-section (2) of

Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central

Government is empowered to frame rules for carrying out the

purposes of the said Act, and in exercise of such powers, the

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification was initially

issued vide S.O. 60(E) dated 27.01.1994, mandating prior

environmental clearance for specified categories of projects

listed in Schedule-I. The said EIA Notification, 1994 was

subsequently amended on 07.07.2004 making Environmental

Impact Assessment a statutory requirement for certain

construction and development activities, and thereafter, a

comprehensive Notification bearing S.O. 1533(E) dated

14.09.2006 was issued, commonly referred to as the EIA

Notification, 2006, in supersession of the earlier notification.

2.1. Respondent No.2 further contends that as per the

provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, all new projects or

activities listed in the Schedule, including expansion or

modernization of existing projects crossing threshold limits, are

required to obtain prior Environmental Clearance either from

the Central Government or the State Level Environment Impact

Assessment Authority (SEIAA), as applicable. Under sub-section

(3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the

Central Government has constituted SEIAA in the States for the

purpose of granting environmental clearances in accordance

with the procedure laid down under the EIA Notification, 2006.

The Schedule to EIA Notification, 2006 specifically includes

highways under Entry 7(f), which mandates prior

Environmental Clearance for new National Highways and

expansion projects involving specified thresholds, thereby

bringing the present project within the ambit of mandatory

environmental clearance.

2.2. The subject stretch from Km 220.48 to Km 250.400

forms part of a larger project, namely construction of a four-lane

access controlled Greenfield Highway section of Khammam-

Vijayawada of length 89.429 Km from V. Venkatayapalem village

to Jakkampudi village (Design Chainage 220+480 to 309-909)

under the Other Economic Corridor in the States of Telangana

and Andhra Pradesh. In respect of the said project, an on line

application bearing proposal number IA/TG/NCP/215098/2021

dated 16.06.2021 was submitted by the Project Proponent,

namely the National Highways Authority of India, seeking

Environmental Clearance. Upon receipt of the said application,

the proposal was placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee

(EAC) in its meeting held on 12.07.2021, and thereafter, Terms

of Reference (ToR) were granted vide letter dated 26.07.2021 for

preparation of the EIA/EMP Report and for conducting public

hearing in consultation with the State Government.

2.3. Respondent No.2 further contends that pursuant

to the grant of Terms of Reference, the Project Proponent carried

out detailed Environmental Impact Assessment studies,

including preparation of the final EIA Report, which contained

details of the project, environmental baseline data, impact

assessment, mitigation measures and analysis of alternatives.

With regard to the allegation of Petitioners that selection of

Option-I alignment is actuated by vested interests, it is stated

the EIA Report contains a comparative analysis of three

alternative alignments, and after detailed evaluation of all

relevant environmental and social parameters, Option-I was

selected as the most feasible alignment.

2.4. Respondent No.2 further contends that the

comparative study undertaken by the Project Proponent, along

with maps and supporting data, demonstrated that Option-I

would have lesser impact on environmental and social

components as compared to the other alternatives, and the

same was duly considered by the competent authority. After

considering the EIA studies, recommendations of the Expert

Appraisal Committee and compliance with procedural

requirements under the EIA Notification, 2006, Environmental

Clearance for the project was granted vide letter dated

23.01.2023, subject to project-specific and general conditions.

2.5. Grant of Environmental Clearance was preceded by

a thorough evaluation of the project by the competent authority

established under the EIA Notification, 2006, and was issued

with a view to ensure environmental safeguards while

facilitating infrastructural development. Respondent No.2's role

is confined to assessment of projects from the perspective of

environmental safeguards and grant or rejection of

Environmental Clearance, and issue of land acquisition

pursuant to the impugned Notification dated 26.02.2024 falls

outside its jurisdiction and lies within the domain of the

concerned authorities under the National Highways Act, 1956

and the State Government.

3. Respondents 3 to 5 also filed counter contending

that the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory

body constituted under an Act of Parliament and is responsible

for the 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, which has been undertaken

keeping in view national interest, regional development and

improvement of inter-State connectivity, and that the

Khammam-Vijayawada section of NH-163G is an integral part of

the said corridor. Due care has been taken while finalizing the

alignment, considering optimal and feasible alignment options

in view of prevailing developments, and efforts were made to

avoid existing habitations, settlements, water bodies and

religious. After conducting reconnaissance survey and detailed

deliberations, the present alignment was approved by the

competent authority. A meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under

the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Road Transport &

Highways), New Delhi, wherein various alignment options for

the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor as proposed by the DPR

Consultant were deliberated, and Option-I, being the present

alignment bypassing hills and forest sections, was approved.

3.1. Respondents 3 to 5 further contend that the Land

Acquisition Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting

held on 20.08.2020, deliberated upon the matter and accorded

approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial-

Vijayawada Corridor with a Right of Way of 45 meters. The

approved alignment does not obstruct or impede the proposed

Khammam Ring Road and that the State Government is free to

undertake the ring road project independently. Earlier

notifications issued under Section 3A of the Act had lapsed due

to various reasons, and therefore, a fresh notification bearing

S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024 was issued covering an extent of

25.52 hectares including lands in V. Venkatayapalem,

Vandanam and other villages, duly providing brief description of

land in compliance with Section 3A(2) of the Act. They also

contend that the format adopted for issuance of Section 3A

notification is standardized across the country and is uniformly

followed for all highway projects.

3.2. Respondents No. 3 to 5 further contend that

detailed particulars of land including names of land owners are

provided at the stage of Section 3D notification, and that at the

stage of Section 3A notification, only preliminary details are

provided based on available records without entering upon the

land. As per Section 3B of the Act, entry for survey is

permissible only after issuance of Section 3A notification, and

thereafter, joint measurement survey is conducted with revenue

authorities to ascertain exact details of land and ownership. The

District Collector, Khammam vide letter dated 17.05.2022, had

requested for change of alignment and the same was duly

considered and rejected by Respondent No.4 vide letter dated

13.06.2022, on the ground that change of alignment at that

stage was not feasible in view of the progress of land

acquisition, environmental clearance and other project-related

factors.

3.3. Respondents No.3 to 5 also contend that the State

Government, after considering all aspects, has accorded

concurrence to the proposed alignment vide letter dated

01.02.2024, which overrides the earlier proposal of the District

Collector. The project has been processed in accordance with

the ELA Notification, 2006 and Environmental Clearance has

been granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and

Climate Change vide EC Identification dated 23.01.2023 for

development of a four-lane access controlled Greenfield Highway

from V. Venkatayapalem village to Jakkampudi village covering

a length of 89.429 Km. The Terms of Reference for the project

were approved by the Ministry vide letter dated 26.07.2021.

3.4. Public hearings were conducted in accordance with

the approved Terms of Reference in Khammam District of

Telangana and Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh, presided

over by the respective Additional District Collectors and

Additional District Magistrates, in the presence of

environmental engineers, and the issues raised by the public

were duly addressed and incorporated in the Environmental

Management Plan. The details of Environmental Clearance and

public hearing were published in "The Hindu" and "Mana

Telangana" newspapers on 23.01.2023 and were also displayed

on notice boards of concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30

days. The Respondents No.3 to 5 further contend that the

District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022

addressed to the Member Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of

India, had conveyed that there would be no major impact on

forest and environment in Khammam District due to the project.

Land acquisition for the project is being carried out strictly in

accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act,

1956 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013, and compensation will be paid to

affected land owners as per the said Act. It is also contended,

the State Government has reiterated its concurrence to the

alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, pursuant to which fresh

Section 3A notification dated 26.02.2024 has been issued.

4. Petitioners filed reply contending that the present

Writ Petition is part of a batch of seven Writ Petitions, out of

which Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20359 of

2024 and 22802 of 2024 relate to a stretch of 29.92 Km from V.

Venkatayapalem village to Brahmanapalli village forming part of

the Khammam to Vijayawada section, situated on the southern

side of the Khammam District Collector's office, and Writ

Petitions No. 14632 of 2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024

relate to a stretch of 16.67 Km from Tirdhala village to V.

Venkatayapalem Village forming part of the Warangal to

Khammam section on the northern side, both falling under the

jurisdiction of Khammam R.D.O., and separated by the 100 feet

Wyra Road passing in front of the District Collector's office.

4.1. Petitioners also contend that both the aforesaid

stretches are interlinked and any change of alignment or

provision of bypass at V. Venkatayapalem near the District

Collector's office would necessarily affect both stretches, and

therefore both segments are required to be considered and

resolved simultaneously. The claim of Respondents that due

care was taken to avoid human habitations, settlements, water

bodies and religious structures is wholly false and contrary to

ground realities. The impugned alignment passes through

approximately 725 house sites of 70 square yards each allotted

by the State Government to landless poor, out of which about

400 house sites are directly affected and the remaining are

likely to be rendered uninhabitable due to severe pollution

caused by the highway.

4.2. Petitioners further contend that the alignment

passes within approximately 200 feet of the District Collector's

office, which houses several revenue courts and is a noise

sensitive zone, and that the said alignment was fixed without

consulting local authorities despite the District Collector's letter

dated 17.05.2022 recommending change. Khammam Member of

Parliament had also addressed a letter dated 11.11.2022 to the

Union Transport Minister requesting shifting of the alignment

by at least 5 Km in view of local development plans. The

impugned alignment passes in close proximity to a newly

established Government Medical College situated about 120.

feet away, another colony consisting of about 500 house sites

situated about 420 feet away, and V. Venkatayapalem Gram

Panchayat having a population of approximately 5000 located

about 300 meters away, and further that Khammam Municipal

Corporation limits lie within less than one kilometre.

4.3. Due to the establishment of the District Collectorate

and declaration of ring road, thousands of house sites have

been formed and the town of Khammam has expanded by at

least 5 Km beyond the impugned alignment, and that the

alignment cuts through developed commercial and residential

areas. Respondents have kept the land owners under

continuous uncertainty for nearly six years since January 2019

by issuing successive notifications, thereby preventing

development of the area and causing severe hardship. The

impugned alignment passes through human habitations,

educational institutions and important public offices in violation

of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the

Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National

Highways. Petitioners further contend that the alignment passes

within approximately 400 feet of Khanapuram Haveli village and

that the applicable environmental guidelines mandate avoidance

of such habitations or provision of bypass roads. The alignment

from Warangal to Vijayawada is semi-circular and not in a crow-

flight path, thereby violating the guidelines issued by the

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways requiring straight

alignment with minimal deviation from habitations.

4.4. Section 3A(1) notifications were issued as early as

May, 2019 without conducting proper surveys, without public

consultation and even without obtaining Environmental

Clearance, thereby rendering the process illegal. The assertion

of the Respondents that alignment was finalized after due

deliberations is false and contrary to the chronology of events.

There is contradiction in the Respondents stand inasmuch as

the Land Acquisition Committee approval dated 20.08.2020 is

subsequent to issuance of Section 3A notifications starting from

17.05.2019. The Environmental Clearance Certificate dated

23.01.2023 contains incorrect and misleading data, including

incorrect statements that the area is predominantly agricultural

and uninhabited and that wheat is a major crop, whereas in

reality the entire Khammam Municipal Corporation area with a

population of approximately 5 lakhs lies within 10 Km radius.

Similar defects exist in the Environmental Clearance Certificate

dated 16.02.2023 for Warangal to Khammam stretch, which

also contains incorrect and generalized data and reflects non-

application of mind. The DPR Consultant report of ENVIRO

INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. is perfunctory, cryptic and

inconsistent with the timeline of notifications, and appears to be

a tailor-made report lacking proper analysis

4.5. Petitioners further contend that Respondents have

acted in haste and in a clandestine manner by issuing Section

3A notifications prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance and

without conducting mandatory consultations with State

Government and local bodies. The assertion that the impugned

alignment does not affect the Khammam ring road is incorrect,

as the proposed highway is elevated approximately 15 feet above

ground and would obstruct seamless development and

connectivity, effectively dividing the town. Alignment would

aggravate flooding conditions in Khammam, as it would act as a

barrier to natural flow of water near Wyra Road and

Collectorate, thereby causing waterlogging and marooning of

surrounding areas. Repeated issuance of Section 3A

notifications defeats the statutory purpose of limiting their

validity to one year, and that such repeated notifications

without fresh consultation and consideration of ground realities

are impermissible.

4.6. Petitioners further contend that Section 3A

notification is a crucial stage in acquisition proceedings and

failure to provide particulars of land as required under Section

3A(2) deprives land owners of meaningful opportunity to object,

thereby violating principles of natural justice. Rejection of the

District Collector's recommendation dated 17.05.2022 vide

letter dated 13.06.2022 is arbitrary, biased and mala fide,

particularly when Environmental Clearance had not been

obtained at that stage. The subsequent concurrence of the State

Government dated 01.02.2024 is only a change of opinion due

to change in political regime and does not alter the factual

position on ground, and that the impugned alignment is

influenced by political and vested interests. Environmental

Clearance process was undertaken belatedly and in haste, and

that public hearings conducted thereafter do not cure the

illegality of prior actions.

4.7. Petitioners further contend that the project has

been artificially segmented into smaller stretches of 16.67 Km

and 29.92 Kim to circumvent the requirement of comprehensive

Environmental Clearance applicable to projects exceeding

threshold limits, which is impermissible in law. Segmentation of

projects to avoid environmental scrutiny has been held illegal by

judicial precedents, and that the present case squarely falls

within such prohibited practice. It is stated, Respondents have

failed to comply with the Manual of Land Acquisition for

National Highways, 2018 and Environmental Impact

Assessment Guidelines, which are essential governing norms

beyond the limited provisions of Sections 3A and 3D of the

National Highways Act, 1956.

4.8. Petitioners also contend that the width of the

impugned Greenfield Highway is fixed at 45 meters, which is

contrary to the prescribed minimum width of 60 meters,

rendering the project itself illegal. Respondents have issued

Section 3D notification dated 06.09.2024 in respect of certain

petitioners despite interim orders dated 09.07.2024 directing

maintenance of status quo, thereby acting in violation of orders

of this Court

5. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri

N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General, Sri Padma

Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.

6. The challenge in the present writ petition is directed

against the Gazette Notification bearing S.O. 909 (E) dated

26.02.2024 issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways

Act, 1956, in respect of acquisition of land for formation of NH-

163G for the stretch from Km 220.48 to Km 250.400 in

Khammam District. At the outset, it is necessary to note that

the National Highways Act, 1956 is a self-contained code

providing a complete statutory mechanism for acquisition of

land for National Highways. Section 3A contemplates issuance

of a preliminary notification expressing the intention of the

Central Government to acquire land, Section 3C provides for

filing of objections by interested persons and consideration

thereof by the competent authority, and Section 3D provides for

declaration acquisition upon such consideration.

7. It is also well-settled that a notification issued

under Section 3A(0) is only a preliminary step in the acquisition

process, the primary purpose of which is to invite objections

from interested persons, and the statute itself confers a specific

right upon such persons to submit objections before the

competent authority under Section 3C. In the present case,

Petitioners raised several contentions relating to alleged non-

compliance with Section 3A(2), improper alignment, violation of

Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, absence of

adequate public consultation, alleged mala fides, impact on

habitations and feasibility of alternative alignments.

8. However, a careful examination of the nature of the

contentions reveals that the issues raised by Petitioners are

predominantly factual and technical in nature, requiring

detailed examination of alignment studies, environmental

reports, comparative feasibility of alternatives, ground realities

and expert material. Such issues, by their very nature,

necessitate appreciation of evidence, examination of technical

data and evaluation of competing considerations, which fall

squarely within the domain of the competent authority

designated under the statute. Further, the contention relating

to alleged non-disclosure of particulars under Section 3A(2),

adequacy of description of lands, and the consequential inability

to raise objections, are also matters which can be effectively

urged before the competent authority under Section 3C, which

is empowered to consider all objections and pass appropriate

orders.

9. This Court also takes note of the stand of the

Respondents that Environmental Clearance has been granted

after following the procedure prescribed under the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification, 2006, and that

alignment has been finalized after consideration of alternative

options. Whether such procedures have been strictly complied

with, whether the Environmental Clearance suffers from any

infirmity, and whether the alignment is in conformity with

applicable guidelines are all questions which involve disputed

facts and technical evaluation and are not amenable to

adjudication in writ jurisdiction at this preliminary stage.

10. It is trite law that in exercise of jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not ordinarily

undertake adjudication of disputed questions of fact,

particularly in matters involving technical expertise and policy

decisions, unless there is a clear case of patent illegality or lack

of jurisdiction. In the present case, no such exceptional

circumstance is made out warranting interference at the stage

of Section 3A notification, especially when the statute itself

provides an efficacious remedy for redressal of grievances.

11. It is also a settled principle of law that when a

statute provides a complete machinery for redressal of

grievances, the aggrieved party must ordinarily exhaust such

statutory remedy before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction

of this Court, unless there are compelling reasons to bypass the

same. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioners have

an effective and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 3C

of the Act to raise all their objections, including those relating to

alignment, environmental concerns, procedural irregularities

and violation of statutory provisions. The competent authority,

upon receipt of such objections, is under a statutory obligation

to consider the same and pass a reasoned order, and therefore

the Petitioners cannot be said to be without remedy.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the writ petition is premature and not

maintainable at this stage, as the Petitioners have not

exhausted the statutory remedy available to them under the

Act.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving

it open to Petitioners to avail the statutory remedy by filing

appropriate objections before the competent authority under

Section 3C of the Act within the time permissible in law. It is

made clear that if such objections are filed, the competent

authority shall consider the same strictly in accordance with

law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners,

and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all

the contentions raised. It is further observed that all

contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged

before the competent authority, and no opinion is expressed by

this Court on the merits of the case. No costs.

14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

07th April 2026

ksld