Veginati Kishore vs The Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 420 Tel

Telangana High Court

Veginati Kishore vs The Union Of India on 7 April, 2026

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
                    TELANGANA
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 14632 OF 2024

                            07.04.2026
Between:

Veginati Kishore & others
                                                            ..... Petitioners
And

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

O R D E R:

The case of Petitioners is that the National

Highways Authority of India has planned the Greenfield

Highway NH-163G from Nagpur in Maharashtra to Vijayawada

in Andhra Pradesh, which is a Category "A" project as per the

Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. The said

highway passes from Warangal to Khanımam to Vijayawada and

the impugned alignment was approved on 03.01.2019 by NHAI

and subsequently, approved by the Land Acquisition Committee

on 20.08.2020, as reflected in the letter dated 08.02.2024

issued by the NHAI Project Implementation Unit-1, Khammam.

The project appears to have been conceived much earlier and

yet the process has been undertaken in a manner detrimental to

public interest.

1.1. Petitioners further contend that the alignment

crosses Wyra Road on the eastern side of Khammam city and

successive notifications under Section 3 of the National

Highways Act, 1956, namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021,

S.Q. 3563(E) dated 29.07.2022, S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022,

S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024,

along with several others, were issued in unknown newspapers

without furnishing particulars of land owners and the extent of

land proposed to be acquired as mandated under Section 3A(2)

of the Act. The impugned alignment is unnecessarily circuitous

inasmuch as, to reach Vijayawada from Warangal, the highway

need not cross Khammam city or intersect Wyra Road on the

eastern side, and instead could have been aligned on the

western side of Khammam in a straight line or alternatively

routed via Suryapet to Vijayawada National Highway without

crossing river Muneru. The longer alignment has been

deliberately adopted to benefit certain influential persons

holding large extents of land, resulting in loss of thousands of

crores of rupees to the public exchequer and adversely affecting

the lives and properties of the local population.

1.2. Petitioners further contend that Notification No.

S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of

the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and the

consequential Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023

issued under Section 3D(1) in respect of the stretch from Km

203.8 to Km 220.48 are mutually contradictory, as the villages

and survey numbers mentioned therein do not correspond with

each other. The Petitioners specifically contend that V.

Venkatayapalem village is mentioned in Notification S.O.

4407(E) but does not find place in Notification S.O. 3928,

thereby rendering both notifications liable to be set aside.

1.3. The impugned alignment at V. Venkatayapalem

Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District has

been finalized in total violation of the Act, the Environmental

Impact Assessment Guidelines issued by the Ministry of

Environment and Forests, and the guidelines issued by the

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Respondents had

identified three alternative alignments, namely (a) abutting

Khammam Municipal Corporation on the east, (b) further east

to Khammam, and (c) still further east to option (b), but

deliberately selected alignment "A" with mala fide intention to

benefit certain politicians, disregarding statutory provisions, the

letter of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022, and the health

and financial safety of the Petitioners. Petitioners assert that the

entire exercise of fixing the alignment from Warangal to

Khammam is illegal, mala fide and futile.

1.4. Petitioners further contend that there has been

complete disregard of public concerns and stakeholder

participation. The Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, Shri Nama

Nageswara Rao, addressed a letter to the Union Road Transport

Minister requesting that the alignment be shifted by 5

kilometers away from Khammam town, highlighting several

critical issues. As per the EIA Guidelines, particularly

paragraph 7.3 at page 29, the project proponent is required to

address all environmental concerns raised during public

consultation and make appropriate changes in the draft EIA and

EMP, but in the present case no meaningful consultation with

stakeholders was conducted. Stakeholders including the general

public, environmentalists, social workers, educated persons,

local bodies, government employees and land losers were not

consulted at all. It is contended that several Gram Panchayats

adjacent to Khammam city passed resolutions opposing the

impugned alignment and issued letters stating that they had no

knowledge of the Environmental Clearance obtained by NHAI.

During the environmental public hearing, all 15 speakers

opposed the alignment, 79 written representations were

submitted, and the participants raised slogans against the

alignment. The stakeholders have been agitating against the

impugned alignment for the past two years through a Joint

Action Committee and raised concerns that the highway is not

beneficial to the local public, passes through valuable

commercial plots, poses danger to health due to pollution,

hampers local development plans and affects government

offices, educational institutions and human habitations.

1.5. Petitioners further contend that the District

Collector, Khammam, through letter dated 17.05.2022

addressed to the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary,

Government of Telangana, highlighted several issues and

recommended change of alignment. Despite the said

recommendations, Respondents finalized the alignment without

consulting Khammam Municipality, Roads and Buildings

Department and Gram Panchayats, and the alignment passes

very close to the Collectorate, educational institutions and

residential areas, thereby violating existing development plans

of the region. It is further contended that the State Government

had already planned a ring road for Khammam and allocated

Rs. 209 crores for land acquisition.

1.6. Petitioners further contend that the Manual of

Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the

National Highways Act, 1956 mandates that prior to issuance of

notification under Section 3D, an indicative assessment of land

acquisition cost based on collector rates should be undertaken

and if the cost is prohibitively high, the alignment should be

modified. It is contended that Respondents failed to undertake

such assessment and did not consult the District Collector,

despite the fact that the Collector had indicated that land cost

was Rs. 1 Crore per acre in 2018. Petitioners further contend

that the impugned alignment passes within a few feet of the new

Collectorate, educational institutions, human habitations and

valuable commercial sites.

1.7. Petitioners also contend that Respondents violated

the requirement of issuing composite notifications and instead

deliberately bifurcated the project into stretches less than 30

kilometers to circumvent statutory provisions and guidelines.

The impugned alignment violates Article 300A of the

Constitution, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2024, wherein it was held that the right

to property includes seven procedural safeguards such as

notice, hearing, reasoned decision, public purpose, fair

compensation, efficient conduct and conclusion of proceedings,

and non-compliance with these requirements renders the

acquisition invalid. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty, highway

alignments can be interfered with in cases of mala fide and

violation of statutory provisions, both of which are present in

the instant case. The Petitioners further contend that

segmentation of highways is impermissible as held in Civil

Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020 in National Highways

Authority of India v. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu.

1.8. Petitioners further contend that Respondents have

not respected judicial process and despite interim orders in Writ

Petition No. 3921 and 20359 of 2023, they continued issuing

notifications affecting the subject lands. Notification No. S.O.

4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 violates Section 3A(2) of the Act by

not providing particulars of land and that land owners have

been agitating for the past three years. Respondents have

deliberately segmented the highway into stretches of less than

30 kilometers, such as 16.68 kilometers, to avoid the

requirement of wide consultation under EIA Guidelines

applicable to Category "A" projects.

1.9. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents

failed to consider EIA Guidelines relating to existing land use

plans, environmental sensitivity areas within 15 kilometers, and

proximity to sensitive land uses such as hospitals, schools,

places of worship and community facilities, and that the

alignment passes close to government offices, educational

institutions and residential areas affecting health, safety and

livelihood. Petitioners further contend that Respondents violated

EIA Guidelines relating to air pollution mitigation, which require

avoidance of alignment near housing, schools and hospitals,

and also violated noise pollution guidelines requiring

development of bypass roads to avoid noise sensitive areas. It is

contended that the alignment passes very close to the District

Collector's office, which is a noise sensitive area, as well as

Harvest Public School, Government Medical College and V.

Venkatayapalem Village.

1.10. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents

ignored stakeholder concerns in violation of EIA Guidelines

requiring incorporation of public concerns in the EIA and EMP.

The impugned alignment is contrary to the notification dated

26.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways, which mandates that green-field alignments should

follow a crow-flight route, maintain distance from habitations

and connect towns through spurs. It is also contended,

Respondents failed to follow the Manual of Guidelines on Land

Acquisition for National Highways, particularly regarding

assessment of land acquisition cost and issuance of composite

notifications, and deliberately bifurcated the project to

circumvent legal requirements.

1.11. Petitioners further contend that Respondents acted

in haste and with mala fide intention, as reflected in the RTI

reply dated 08.02.2024 stating that alignment was finalized

after deliberations between the Chairman, NHAI and the State

Government, without disclosing the date of such decision. It is

further contended that earlier RTI reply dated 26.10.2021

refused disclosure citing an office memorandum dated

04.08.2021 and a High Court judgment dated 09.07.2021

without providing copies thereof. Petitioners further contend

that the consultant M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

submitted a cryptic and perfunctory report recommending the

impugned alignment without proper quantitative and qualitative

analysis, merely referring to "some" or "more" felling of trees.

1.12. Petitioners further contend that Environmental

Clearance Certificate No. EC23A034TG157248 is irrelevant and

misleading as it considers only construction phase pollution

and not operational pollution. It is contended that Respondents

failed to comply with conditions of the Environmental

Clearance, including publication in newspapers, dissemination

to local bodies and display for 30 days. The Certificate provides

for revocation in case of concealment or false data and that the

Respondents advertised the clearance only in negligible size in

obscure newspapers. Petitioners finally contend that the

impugned notifications are liable to be declared illegal, mala fide

and violative of statutory provisions, guidelines, Article 300A,

Article 14 and principles of natural justice and are liable to be

quashed, with a consequential direction restraining the

Respondents from proceeding further with the impugned

alignment.

2. Respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter contending that

the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory body

constituted by an Act of Parliament and is a Central

Government Agency entrusted with the responsibility of

development, maintenance and management of National

Highways and all matters connected therewith or incidental

thereto. Keeping in view the national and larger public interest,

regional development and the objective of improving inter-State

connectivity, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and

NHAI have accorded approval for the development of the

Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under Bharatmala Pariyojana

Phase-1, and that the Warangal-Khammam section of NH-163G

forms an integral part of the said corridor. Respondents contend

that due care has been taken while fixing the alignment by

considering optimal and feasible options in light of prevailing

developments and that efforts were made to avoid existing

habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures.

It is further contended that after reconnaissance survey and

detailed deliberations, the present alignment was approved by

the competent authority.

2.1. The allegation of contradiction between the

notifications issued under Section 3A(1) and Section 3D(1) of

the Act is false and baseless. Due diligence was exercised in

finalizing the alignment, taking into account feasibility and

prevailing conditions, and that the alignment was approved only

after detailed deliberations and survey, while ensuring minimal

disturbance to existing settlements, water bodies and religious

structures. A meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under the

Chairmanship of the Secretary, Road Transport and Highways,

New Delhi, wherein various alignment options for the Nagpur-

Vijayawada Corridor, as proposed by the DPR Consultant, were

deliberated and Option-1, which is the present alignment

bypassing hills and forest sections, was agreed upon. It is

further contended that the Land Acquisition Committee of NHAI

Headquarters, in its meeting held on 20.08.2020, deliberated

upon the matter and accorded approval for the present

alignment of the Mancherial-Vijayawada Corridor with a right of

way of 45 meters.

2.2. Respondents further contend that the format

adopted for publication of notification under Section 3A of the

Act is standardized and uniformly followed for all projects

across the country. It is contended that the names of land

owners are furnished at the stage of Section 3D notification. The

Respondents further contend that at the stage of Section 3A

notification, only preliminary assessment is undertaken based

on revenue maps and reference points without entering upon

the land for detailed survey, and that only after publication of

Section 3A notification, the authority is empowered under

Section 3B to enter the land for survey. It is further contended

that only after joint measurement survey with revenue

authorities, the exact details of survey numbers and names of

land owners or interested persons can be ascertained.

2.3. It is true that the District Collector, Khammam vide

letter Ref. No. G1/2771/2018 dated 17.05.2022, requested

change of alignment. However, it is contended that the said

request was duly considered and was responded to by the 4th

Respondent through letter dated 13.06.2022, wherein it was

categorically stated that change of alignment at that stage was

not feasible in view of the progress of land acquisition,

environmental clearance and other issues involved in the

project. All due procedures were followed in accordance with the

EIA Notification, 2006 and that the Ministry of Environment,

Forest and Climate Change granted Environmental Clearance

for the development of the four-lane access-controlled Greenfield

Highway from Warangal (Chainage 112.240) to Khammam

(Chainage 220.480), having a total length of 108.24 kilometers

in the State of Telangana, vide EC Identification No.

EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023. The Terms of Reference

for the project proposal were duly approved by the Ministry vide

letter No. F.No. 10/32/2021-1A.III dated 16.08.2021.

2.4. It is also contended, in accordance with the

approved Terms of Reference, public hearings were conducted in

the project area, including at Raghunadhapalem Village in

Khammam District and Ayyagaripalle Village in Mahabubabad

District, under the supervision of the respective Additional

Collectors in the presence of Environmental Engineers of the

concerned regions. The issues raised by the public during such

hearings were duly addressed and incorporated in the

Environmental Management Plan. It is further contended that

details of the project were published in "The Hindu" and "Mana

Telangana" newspapers on 18.02.2023 and were displayed on

the notice boards of the concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30

days. The Respondents also contend that the District Collector,

Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the

Member Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of India, conveyed

that there would be no major impact on forest and environment

in Khammam District due to the project.

2.5. Respondents further contend that the land

acquisition for the project is being carried out strictly in

accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act,

1956 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013, and that compensation for land and

other affected properties shall be paid in accordance with the

provisions of the said Act. The State Government has conveyed

its concurrence to the original alignment finalized by NHAI vide

letter dated 01.02.2024 and that a fresh notification under

Section 3A has been issued vide S.O. 911(E) dated 26.02.2024.

3. Petitioners filed a reply contending that the present

writ petition is part of a group of seven writ petitions arising

out of the same subject matter and that counters have been

filed by the Respondents only in two writ petitions, while

counters in the remaining five writ petitions are yet to be filed,

though substantial legal issues have been raised therein to

assist this Court. The averments in paragraph 5 of the counter,

stating that due care was taken in fixing the alignment by

considering optimal and feasible options and avoiding existing

habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures,

are wholly false and contrary to the factual position. The

Petitioners contend that the Respondents have filed an

incomplete counter without addressing the statutory provisions,

rules and guidelines referred to in the affidavit of the

Petitioners.

3.1. Petitioners further contend that the assertion of

Respondents that human habitations have been avoided is

incorrect, as the impugned alignment passes through 625

house sites of 70 square yards each allotted to landless poor

persons, as evidenced by Exhibit P-1, and approximately 400

such house sites are directly affected, while the remaining sites

are likely to be rendered uninhabitable due to pollution caused

by the highway passing adjacent to the small residential plots.

Due care has not been exercised in fixing the alignment near the

Khammam District Collector's Office at V. Venkatayapalem,

which is a noise-sensitive area housing several revenue courts.

The Petitioners contend that the alignment passes within a few

feet of the said office. It is also contended, the District Collector

himself addressed a letter dated 17.05.2022 to NHAI through

the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, stating that the

alignment was fixed without consulting local authorities and

required modification.

3.2. Petitioners further contend that the Member of

Parliament from Khammam addressed a letter dated 11.11.2022

to the Union Transport Minister requesting that the alignment

be shifted by at least 5 kilometers in view of local development

plans. The Petitioners further contend that the new Government

Medical College is situated at a distance of about 120 feet from

the alignment, another colony consisting of about 500 house

sites of landless poor is situated about 420 feet away, V.

Venkatayapalem Village having a population of about 5000 is

located at a distance of about 300 meters, the new Khammam

District Offices Complex is about 200 feet away, and the limits

of Khammam Municipal Corporation are within less than one

kilometer on the western side.

3.3. Petitioners further contend that due to the

establishment of the new Collectorate and the proposed ring

road by the State Government, Khammam town has expanded

significantly, and several thousands of house sites have been

developed in the area through which the impugned alignment

passes. Respondents have kept the Petitioners under

continuous uncertainty for nearly six years since 2019, when

the first notification under Section 3A(1) was issued, thereby

preventing development of the area and causing irreparable loss

and hardship to the landowners. The impugned alignment

passes through commercial house sites, human habitations,

educational institutions and important workplaces, in clear

violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines

and the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways.

3.4. As per Ex. P-3, the impugned alignment passes

near Khanapuram Haveli at a distance of about 400 feet, and

that the EIA Guidelines require avoidance of human habitations

and noise-sensitive areas either by altering alignment or by

constructing bypass roads, which has not been done in the

present case. Ex. P-4 demonstrates that the alignment is curved

and semi-circular in nature from Warangal to Jakkapudi, which

is contrary to Circular No. NH-15017/21/2018-P&M dated

26.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways, which mandates that greenfield alignments should

follow a crow-flight route. Notifications under Section 3A(1) have

been issued from the year 2019 onwards without conducting

surveys, public consultations or obtaining Environmental

Clearance, as is evident from the Environmental Clearance

Certificate placed on record.

3.5. Petitioners further contend that they have filed a

detailed affidavit referring to the Environmental Impact

Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land

Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways

Act, 1956, which have not been addressed by the Respondents.

Paragraph 7 of the counter is merely a repetition of paragraph 5

and does not require separate reply. The averments in

paragraph 8 of the counter are self-contradictory, as it is stated

that the Land Acquisition Committee approved the alignment on

20.08.2020, whereas notifications under Section 3A(1) were

being issued from 2019 onwards, and the environmental public

hearing was conducted only on 15.03.2022. Environmental

Clearance for the Khammam to Jakkampudi section was issued

on 23.01.2023, and the Terms of Reference were approved only

on 26.07.2021, thereby demonstrating inconsistency in the

timeline.

3.6. The letter dated 08.02.2024 issued by the

Respondents states that the alignment was approved on

03.01.2019 and further states that the decision was taken after

deliberations with the Chairman, NHAI and the State

Government, indicating that such deliberations were conducted

belatedly, thereby putting the cart before the horse. It is further

contend that Respondents ought to have consulted the State

Government, local authorities, revenue authorities and

municipal bodies and obtained Environmental Clearance prior

to issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, but

failed to do so. The previous State Government had sought

change of alignment through the letter of the District Collector

dated 17.05.2022, but due to change in political circumstances,

the present alignment is being supported, which demonstrates

political influence and mala fide intention. Petitioners further

contend that the affected landowners have been subjected to

prolonged uncertainty and mental agony for nearly six years

and have suffered irreparable loss as they were unable to utilize

or develop their lands.

3.7. Petitioners further contend that the DPR

consultant, M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., submitted a

report in November 2021 stating that the baseline study was

conducted between April 2021 and June 2021, which

contradicts the Respondents claim that alignment and land

acquisition proposals were finalized in 2019 and 2020, thereby

rendering the process arbitrary and illogical. The said report

analyzed three alternative alignments, namely Option 1

(Greenfield alignment passing through multiple towns including

Khammam, Wyra, Bonkal, Madhira, G. Konduru and

Vijayawada covering 39 villages), Option 2 (Brownfield

alignment) and Option 3 (alternative Greenfield alignment), and

recommended Option 1 on the basis of lesser tree felling and

lower cost, which according to the Petitioners is a tailor-made

and arbitrary conclusion lacking proper analysis.

3.8. Petitioners further contend that the alignment

unnecessarily passes through the eastern side of Khammam

instead of adopting a straighter route on the western side

without crossing river Muneru, thereby increasing cost and

adversely affecting public interest. Paragraph 9 of the counter-

affidavit is legally unsustainable, as notification under Section

3A(1) is issued inviting objections and it is essential that

landowners are informed of the particulars of land proposed to

be acquired. Failure to provide such particulars violates Section

3A(2) and principles of natural justice, as landowners cannot

effectively file objections without knowing the extent of impact.

3.9. Respondents' admission regarding the District

Collector's letter dated 17.05.2022 and their rejection thereof by

letter dated 13.06.2022 is arbitrary and biased, as at that stage

no substantial progress had been made except issuance of

preliminary notifications, and even Environmental Clearance

had not been obtained. For the purpose of Environmental

Clearance, the project was divided into two sections, namely

Warangal to Khammam and Khammam to Vijayawada, while for

the purpose of notifications, the project was segmented into

stretches of less than 30 kilometers, namely Tirdhala to V.

Venkatayapalem measuring 29.92 kilometers and V.

Venkatayapalem to Kodumur measuring 16.66 kilometers, both

falling within the jurisdiction of R.DO.. Khammam, which is

contrary to guidelines.

3.10. Petitioners contend that Environmental Clearance

for Warangal to Khammam section was obtained on 16.02.2023

vide EC No. EC23A034TG157248 and for Khammam to

Vijayawada section on 23.01.2023 vide EC No.

EC23A034TG132431, and therefore the rejection of the District

Collector's request on 13.06.2022 on the ground of progress of

Environmental Clearance is unjustified. The approvals referred

to by the Respondents have been obtained without following due

process of law and are therefore invalid. The public hearing

conducted on 15.03.2022 was belated and ineffective, and that

the letter dated 02.10.2022 of the District Collector pertains

only to environmental impact on forests and does not address

the issue of alignment near the District Offices Complex at V.

Venkatayapalem, which requires modification or provision of a

bypass.

3.11. Respondents have not complied with the provisions

of the National Highways Act, 1956, EIA Guidelines, Manual of

Land Acquisition for National Highways and the RFCTLARR Act,

2013, and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such

guidelines have the force of law and that courts may interfere in

cases involving mala fide and violation of statutory provisions,

both of which are present in the instant case. Petitioners further

contend that Respondents have issued a fresh notification

under Section 3A(1) vide S.O. 911(E) dated 26.02.2024 during

the pendency of the writ petition, covering the same stretch and

involving some of the Petitioners, which amounts to contempt of

court and renders the earlier notifications illegal.

3.12. Petitioners further contend that the said notification

pertains to a stretch of 16.66 kilometers from V.

Venkatayapalem to Kodumur, forming part of the jurisdiction of

R.D.O., Khammam, while the remaining stretch of 29.92

kilometers from Tirdhala to V. Venkatayapalem also falls under

the same jurisdiction, and that the entire stretch ought to have

been notified as a single unit in accordance with guidelines.

Segmentation of the project is impermissible as per judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that Category "A" projects

involving more than 30 kilometers and multiple States require

strict compliance with procedural requirements including public

consultation.

3.13. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents

cannot continue issuing successive notifications under Section

3A from 2019 to 2024 without meaningful progression of the

acquisition process and without addressing public objections

and subsequent developments. The impugned Greenfield

Highway alignment is itself illegal as it provides for a right of

way of 45 meters, whereas the prescribed minimum width for

Greenfield Highways is 60 meters.

4. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel

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

N. Bhujanga Rao, learend Deputy Solicitor General and Sri

Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.

5. The primary challenge in the present Writ Petition is

directed against the notifications issued under Sections 3A(1)

and 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, namely

Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 and Notification

No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023, insofar as they relate to the

stretch of land from Km 203.8 to Km 220.48 of the Greenfield

Highway NH-163G, covering from Tirdhala Village to

Mallemadugu Village in Khammam District, and also the

alignment finalized by the Respondents in respect of the said

stretch.

6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the

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

acquisition of land for national highways. Section 3A(1) of the

Act contemplates issuance of a preliminary notification

declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire

land, and Section 3A(2) requires that such notification shall

contain a brief description of the land. Section 3C provides a

specific statutory remedy to any person interested in the land to

file objections before the competent authority within the

prescribed time, and mandates consideration of such objections

by way of an adjudicatory process. Thereafter, Section 3D

contemplates declaration of acquisition upon consideration of

objections.

7. Thus, the statutory scheme clearly envisages a

two-stage process, wherein the initial notification under Section

3A is followed by an opportunity to the affected persons to

submit objections under Section 3C, and thereafter, a

declaration under Section 3D is issued. The Act, therefore,

provides an inbuilt mechanism for redressal of grievances

relating to acquisition, including issues concerning extent of

land, identification of land, adequacy of particulars and

objections to alignment. Petitioners have raised a multitude of

contentions challenging the impugned notifications and the

alignment, including alleged violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act

for want of proper particulars, contradiction between

notifications under Sections 3A and 3D, non-consultation of

stakeholders, violation of Environmental Impact Assessment

Guidelines, improper segmentation of the project, mala fide

exercise of power, non-consideration of alternative alignments,

and procedural irregularities in grant of environmental

clearance.

8. On the other hand, Respondents have specifically

contended that the alignment was finalized after due

deliberations at various levels, including approval in the meeting

held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary,

Road Transport and Highways, and approval by the Land

Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020; that environmental

clearance was granted on 16.02.2023 after following due

procedure including public hearings; and that the acquisition is

being undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of

the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the RFCTLARR Act,

2013.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, several of

the issues raised by Petitioners, particularly those relating to

the adequacy of particulars in the notification under Section

3A(2), alleged discrepancies between the notifications issued

under Sections 3A and 3D, the extent of land affected,

identification of survey numbers, and the impact of the

acquisition on specific properties and localities, are essentially

questions of fact which require detailed examination of records,

surveys and evidence.

10. Such questions are squarely within the domain of

the competent authority under Section 3C of the Act, which is

statutorily empowered to consider objections of interested

persons, conduct necessary inquiry and pass appropriate

orders. The Petitioners, therefore, have an effective and

efficacious remedy to raise all such factual and legal objections

before the said authority. Further, the grievance of Petitioners

that the notification under Section 3A does not contain

sufficient particulars as required under Section 3A(2) is also a

matter which can be effectively urged before the competent

authority, which is required to examine the validity of objections

and pass a reasoned order.

11. Insofar as the contention relating to contradiction

between the notifications under Sections 3A and 3D is

concerned, the same again involves comparison of factual

particulars, survey numbers and village details, which cannot

be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of

the Constitution without detailed factual verification. The

contentions relating to alignment of the highway, feasibility of

alternative routes, alleged deviation from a "crow-flight" route,

and the allegation that the alignment has been chosen with

mala fide intention to benefit certain individuals, also involve

complex factual and technical considerations, including

engineering feasibility, environmental impact, cost implications

and policy decisions, which are ordinarily within the domain of

expert authorities.

12. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review in

matters relating to infrastructure projects, particularly highway

alignment, is limited, and the Court does not sit in appeal over

technical decisions unless there is clear and demonstrable mala

fide or violation of statutory provisions on the face of the record.

Petitioners have also raised contentions regarding violation of

Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, alleged

deficiencies in public consultation, and non-compliance with

conditions of environmental clearance. These issues, by their

very nature, involve examination of technical data, expert

reports, environmental assessments and compliance records,

which are not amenable to summary adjudication in writ

proceedings.

13. Moreover, such issues are governed by specialized

statutory frameworks and regulatory mechanisms, and

appropriate remedies are available before competent

authorities/forums in accordance with law. The contention

regarding segmentation of the project into stretches of less than

30 kilometers and its alleged violation of guidelines and judicial

precedents is also a mixed question of fact and law, which

requires detailed examination of the project structure,

administrative decisions, and statutory compliance, which is not

feasible in the present writ proceedings at this stage.

14. The allegation of mala fides raised by the

Petitioners, though serious in nature, is not supported by such

incontrovertible material on record at this stage so as to warrant

interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary

jurisdiction, particularly when the statutory remedy under

Section 3C is yet to be exhausted. It is a settled principle of law

that when a statute provides a complete mechanism for

redressal of grievances, the High Court would ordinarily decline

to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,

unless exceptional circumstances are made out, such as

violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or patent

illegality.

15. In the present case, this Court does not find that

Petitioners have made out such exceptional circumstances at

this stage, particularly when the statutory process of filing

objections under Section 3C of the Act is available and has not

been exhausted. The contention of the Petitioners that they

have no alternative remedy cannot be accepted in view of the

express provision under Section 3C of the Act, which provides

an efficacious remedy to raise all objections, including those

relating to legality of the notification, extent of land, and

alignment. It is also relevant to note that entertaining the writ

petition at this stage, without permitting the statutory authority

to consider the objections in the first instance, would result in

bypassing the statutory mechanism and would amount to pre-

empting the procedure contemplated under the Act.

16. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion

that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this

stage, inasmuch as the Petitioners have an effective alternative

statutory remedy which they are required to exhaust.

Accordingly, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition on

the ground of availability of alternative remedy, leaving it open

to the Petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 3C of the

Act. It is further made clear that in the event Petitioners file

objections under Section 3C, the competent authority shall

consider the same in accordance with law, objectively and

independently, without being influenced by any observations

made in this order, and shall pass a reasoned order dealing with

all contentions raised by the Petitioners.

17. It is also observed that all the contentions raised by

Petitioners, including those relating to violation of statutory

provisions, guidelines, alleged discrepancies in notifications and

alignment, are left open to be urged before the competent

authority.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds

that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this

stage in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative

remedy under Section 3C of the Act.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of,

leaving it open to Petitioners to avail the statutory remedy by

filing appropriate objections before the competent authority

under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 and to

raise all contentions available to them in law. No costs.

20. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

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

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

07th April 2026

ksld