Muvva Jyothi vs The Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 421 Tel

Telangana High Court

Muvva Jyothi 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. 22802 OF 2024

                            07.04.2026
Between:

Muvva Jyothi & 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 they are the absolute

owners and possessors of various extents of lands situated at V.

Venkatayapalem, Khammam District, comprising specific survey

numbers and plot numbers, details of which are as follows:

(1) Muvva Jyothi, W/o Nagaeswara Rao, aged 50

years, land in Sy.No. 246/El, Plot Nos. 15 and 16 admeasuring

424.00 square yards; (2) Kadiyala Venkateswarlu, C/o

Buchaiah, aged 68 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot Nos. 66

and 67 admeasuring 440.00 square yards; (3) Chava Rama

Linga Vara Prasad, S/o Narsaiah, aged 69 years, land in Sy.Nos.

253/A and 254/A, Plot No. 1 admeasuring 1200.00 square

yards; (4) Regalla Raja Reddy, C/o Regalla Ranga Reddy, aged

about 55 years, land in Sy.No. 248/E, Plot Nos. 119 and 120

admeasuring 330.00 square yards; (5) Sayed Shahira, W/o

Sadhik, aged 35 years, land in Sy.Nos. 248/E1, 251/A1,

248/E2, 251/A2 and 251/A3, Plot No. 21 admeasuring 240.00

square yards; (6) Mohammad Fouzia Parveen, W/o Apsar, aged

54 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot Nos. 35, 36, 69 and 70,

each admeasuring 220.00 square yards, totalling 880.00 square

yards; (7) Alla Rama Rao, S/o Narayana, aged 67 years, land in

Sy.No. 253/A, Plot No. 17 admeasuring 220.00 square yards; (8)

Lakkineni Satyanarayana, S/o Kishaiah, aged 70 years, land in

Sy.No. 253/A, Plot No. 21 admeasuring 220.00 square yards; (9)

Vadlamudi Vijay, S/o Rama Rao, aged 35 years, land in Sy No.

253/A, Plot No. 65 admeasuring 220.00 square yards, and (10)

Macha Ramesh, C/o Chalamaiah, aged 56 years, land in Sy.No.

248/A, Plot No. 165 admeasuring 201.00 square yards.

1.1 Petitioners further contend that the impugned

Greenfield Highway alignment forms part of Nagpur to

Vijayawada NH-163G corridor and that the said alignment was

approved by the National Highways Authority of India on

03.01.2019 and thereafter, by the Land Acquisition Committee

on 20.08.2020, and since then successive notifications under

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

Act') have been issued, culminating in the present impugned

Gazette Notification No. S.O. 909 (E), dated 26.02.2024.

1.2. It is stated, petitioners have been subjected to

continuous uncertainty, hardship and mental agony for nearly

six years commencing from the first notification dated

03.01.2019 till the issuance of the impugned notification dated

26.02.2024, thereby causing grave prejudice to their property

rights and preventing any meaningful utilization or development

of their lands. The District Collector, Khammam, by the letter

dated 17.05.2022 addressed through the Chief Secretary to the

concerned authorities, specifically pointed out that the

impugned alignment was finalized without consultation with

local authorities including Khammam Municipality, Roads and

Buildings Department and Gram Panchayats, and further

highlighted that the State Government had paid Rs.1 Crore per

acre in 2018 for construction of the new Collectorate, thereby

indicating that cost of acquisition under the impugned

alignment would be exorbitantly high, and also brought to the

notice that the State Government had already planned a ring

road for Khammam and sanctioned Rs.200 crores for land

acquisition.

1.3. Petitioners further contend that the Member of

Parliament, Khammam Parliamentary Constituency, Sri Nama

Nageswara Rao, by letter dated 11.11.2022 addressed to the

Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, requested

that impugned alignment be shifted by at least five kilometers in

view of the State Government's master plan for development of

Khammam and the proposed ring road. Several similarly-

situated land losers have approached this Court in Writ

Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 20359 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 14632

of 2024 and 20308 of 2024 and this Court granted interim

orders in those matters. It is also stated, the Environmental

Clearance Certificate bearing No. EC23A034TG132431 dated

23.01.2023 was obtained only subsequently, whereas the

respondents had issued notifications under Sections 3A and 3D

of the 1956 Act right from 2019 onwards without obtaining prior

Environmental Clearance, which renders the entire process

illegal.

1.4. Petitioners further contend that the Environmental

Clearance was sought pursuant to proposal number

IA/TG/NCP/215098/2021 dated 17.05.2022 and Terms of

Reference dated 26.07.2021, and public hearing was conducted

on 15.03.2022 at Khammam, which clearly demonstrates that

the statutory process of environmental clearance was

undertaken much after initiation of acquisition proceedings.

Several Gram Panchayats have passed resolutions opposing the

impugned alignment and that several public representatives

have stated that they were not informed about the

Environmental Clearance process, thereby establishing lack of

proper public consultation. It is contended, the impugned

notification dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 3A(1) of the

Act is in violation of Section 3A(2) inasmuch as it fails to provide

proper and meaningful particulars of the lands proposed to be

acquired and instead provides vague and misleading details,

thereby depriving the Petitioners of an effective opportunity to

file objections.

1.5. Respondents deliberately published the impugned

notification in newspapers such as Hans India and Mana

Telangana, which have very limited circulation in the affected

area, with an intention to avoid effective notice to the affected

land owners. Respondents issued notifications under Sections

3A and 3D in various stretches from Warangal to Khammam

and Khammam to Vijayawada without obtaining Environmental

Clearance from the competent authority from 2019 onwards,

which is in clear violation of law. Though the Environmental

Clearance Certificate for Khammam to Vijayawada stretch was

obtained only on 23.01.2023, several notifications under

Sections 3A and 3D had already been issued prior thereto,

thereby rendering the entire alignment illegal and ex facie mala

fide. The impugned notification is in derogation of the Manual

of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under

the 1956 Act, particularly with regard to assessment of cost of

acquisition, inasmuch as no proper assessment was made

despite the District Collector having specifically indicated that

the land value was about Rs.1 Crore per acre.

1.6. Respondents violated the guidelines relating to

segmentation of project length, inasmuch as the project has

been deliberately bifurcated into stretches less than 30

kilometers, namely 29.92 kilometers and 16.6 kilometers,

within the jurisdiction of the same Revenue Divisional Officer,

Khammam, with an intention to circumvent statutory

requirements and avoid comprehensive environmental scrutiny.

Such segmentation is contrary to the guidelines which mandate

issuance of composite notifications within one jurisdiction and

also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court prohibiting segmentation as a strategy to avoid

environmental clearance requirements. The impugned

alignment violates the prescribed norms relating to width of

Greenfield Highways, inasmuch as the proposed width is only

45 meters, whereas the minimum required right of way is 60

meters for such highways.

1.7. It is contended, the impugned alignment does not

adhere to the principle of crow-flight route and instead takes a

circuitous path by moving towards the eastern side of

Khammam and unnecessarily crossing the Muneru river,

thereby increasing the length and cost of the project. The

impugned alignment passes in close proximity to sensitive and

densely populated areas including the District Collector's office,

Government Medical College, Harvest Public School, V.

Venkatayapalem village and several residential colonies, which

is in clear violation of Environmental Impact Assessment

Guidelines. The impugned project was wrongly categorized as a

Category "B" project instead of Category "A", despite covering

multiple states and exceeding the prescribed thresholds,

thereby avoiding mandatory wider public consultation and

scrutiny.

1.8. It is also contended, respondents have acted in

haste and in a clandestine manner by issuing notifications

without proper consultation with local authorities, public

representatives and affected land owners and without adhering

to mandatory procedural safeguards. Petitioners further

contend that the respondents have not provided proper

particulars in the notification, have failed to conduct meaningful

public consultations, and have ignored objections raised by

local bodies and Gram Panchayats. The action of respondents

are mala fide and arbitrary, including alleged favouring of

certain influential interests and failure to consider alternative

alignments objectively. The DPR consultant report submitted by

Mis Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in November 2021 is

perfunctory, inconsistent with actual ground realities, and

based on incorrect data, including baseline studies conducted

only between April 2021 and June 2021, whereas notifications

had already been issued earlier. Petitioners further contend that

the respondents failed to consult the District Collector and other

local authorities while finalizing the alignment and ignored

relevant factors such as habitation, environmental impact and

development plans. Respondents acted in violation of statutory

guidelines, including Environmental Impact Assessment

Guidelines, 2006 and the Manual of Guidelines on Land

Acquisition for National Highways, which have statutory force.

1.9. Petitioners further contend that despite interim

orders granted by this Court on 21.08.2024 directing

maintenance of status quo, respondents continued to proceed

with the project, and the said interim orders were subsequently

vacated on 13.03.2025, against which Writ Appeal No. 397 of

2025 was filed and disposed of granting liberty to seek

appropriate relief. It is also contended vacation of interim

orders was based on withdrawal of objections by the Revenue

Department and not on merits of the case, and that all other

grounds raised by the Petitioners continue to subsist. If further

steps are permitted pursuant to the impugned notification, the

writ petition itself would become infructuous and Petitioners

would suffer grave and irreparable loss. The impugned action

violates their valuable constitutional rights under Article 300A

and Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of natural

justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

impugned Notification is liable to be declared illegal, arbitrary

and mala fide and consequently liable to be quashed.

2. Respondents 3 to 5 filed counter contending that

Respondent No. 3 is the National Highways Authority of India, a

statutory authority constituted under an Act of Parliament,

entrusted with the responsibility of development, maintenance

and management of National Highways and matters incidental

thereto, and is discharging its functions in accordance with the

statutory mandate and policy decisions of the Central

Government. It is contended, the project in question, namely

the development of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor including

the Khammam-Vijayawada Section of NH-163G, has been

undertaken in the larger national interest under Bharatmala

Pariyojana Phase-I with the objective of improving inter-State

connectivity, facilitating economic growth and strengthening

infrastructure. While finalizing the alignment, due care and

diligence were exercised by the competent authorities by

considering optimal and feasible alignment options in the light

of prevailing ground conditions and developments, and that

specific efforts were made to minimize impact on existing

habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures.

2.1. Respondents further contend that the alignment

was finalized only after conducting reconnaissance surveys and

detailed deliberations by expert agencies and thereafter

approved by the competent authority in accordance with

established procedure. A high-level meeting was held on

03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry

of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, wherein various

alignment options proposed by the DPR Consultant for the

Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor were examined, and the present

alignment (Option-1) which bypasses hilly and forest areas, was

approved as the most suitable option. The Land Acquisition

Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting held on

20.08.2020, further deliberated upon the alignment and

accorded approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial-

Vijayawada Corridor with a right of way of 45 meters.

2.2. Respondents contend that earlier notifications

issued under Section 3A of the Act had lapsed due to passage

of time and other administrative reasons, and therefore a fresh

notification vide Gazette Notification No. 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, by providing brief particulars as required under Section

3A(2) of the Act. The format of publication of Section 3A

notification is standardized and uniformly followed across all

projects in the country, and that detailed particulars such as

survey-wise measurements and names of landowners are

provided only at the stage of Section 3D notification after

completion of statutory survey procedures. Under the statutory

scheme of the 1956 Act, the Authority is empowered under

Section 3B to enter upon the land for the purpose of survey only

after issuance of Section 3A notification, and thereafter, upon

conducting joint measurement surveys with the revenue

authorities, exact details of affected lands and interested

persons are ascertained.

2.3. Respondents contend that the request made by the

District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022

seeking change of alignment was duly considered at the

appropriate level, and the same was rejected by Respondent No.

4 vide letter dated 13.06.2022 on the ground that any change

in alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the

progress of land acquisition, environmental clearance and other

technical and administrative constraints. The Government of

Telangana, after due consideration, conveyed its concurrence to

the finalized alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, thereby

affirming the decision taken by the competent authorities.

Environmental Clearance for the project has been duly obtained

in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment

Notification, 2006, and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and

Climate Change granted Environmental Clearance bearing

identification No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023 for the

development of a 4-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway

from V. Venkatayapalem village to Jakkampudi village (NH-16),

covering a length of 89.429 kilometers from design chainage

220.480 to 309.909.

2.4. Respondents contend that prior to grant of

Environmental Clearance, the Terms of Reference for the project

were approved by the Ministry vide letter dated 26.07.2021, and

all requisite studies and assessments were conducted in

accordance with such Terms of Reference. In compliance with

the statutory requirements, public hearings were conducted in

the project areas including Khammam District in the State of

Telangana and Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

under the supervision of the respective Additional District

Collectors and Additional District Magistrates, in the presence of

Environmental Engineers, and that the issues raised by the

public during such hearings were duly considered and

incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan. It is

stated, the details of the Environmental Clearance and the

outcome of public hearings were duly published in widely

circulated newspapers including "The Hindu" and "Mana

Telangana" on 23.01.2023 and were also displayed on the notice

boards of the concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30 days to

ensure public awareness.

2.5. These Respondents contend that the District

Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to

the Member Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and

Climate Change, Government of India, had specifically conveyed

that the project would not have any major adverse impact on

forest and environmental aspects in Khammam District. The

land acquisition for the project is being undertaken strictly in

accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,

and that all affected landowners are entitled to compensation

and other benefits in accordance with the said statutory

framework. The allegations made by the Petitioners are

unfounded, incorrect and misleading, and that the Petitioners

have failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions or

procedural irregularity in the process undertaken by the

Respondents.

2.6. Respondents further contend that the project is of

significant public importance and any interference at this stage

would adversely affect infrastructure development and larger

public interest. Petitioners have an effective statutory remedy

available under Section 3C of the Act to submit objections

before the competent authority, and without availing such

remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The writ

petition is premature in nature as the acquisition proceedings

are still at an intermediate stage and no declaration under

Section 3D of the Act has been issued.

3. Petitioners filed a reply contending that the present

writ petition forms part of a group of seven writ petitions, out of

which Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20659 of

2024 and 22802 of 2024 pertain to one stretch from V.

Venkatayapalem (V) to Brahmana Palli (V) covering 29.92

kilometers forming part of the Khammam to Vijayawada section,

situated on the southern side of the Khammam District

Collector's office. The remaining Writ Petitions No. 14632 of

2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024 pertain to another

stretch from Tirdhala (V) to V. Venkatayapalem (V) covering

16.67 kilometers forming part of the Warangal to Khammam

section, situated on the northern side of the Collector's office,

and both these stretches fall within the jurisdiction of the same

Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, thereby clearly

indicating deliberate segmentation of the project. Both the

aforesaid stretches are intrinsically interconnected, inasmuch

as any change in alignment near the Khammam District

Collector's office at V. Venkatayapalem or provision of a bypass

road would necessarily affect both stretches simultaneously,

and therefore the issue ought to be considered holistically

rather than in a fragmented manner.

3.1. Petitioners contend that the averments of the

Respondents that due care was taken while fixing the alignment

are wholly false and contrary to ground realities, and that in

fact the impugned alignment passes through 725 house sites of

70 square yards each allotted by the State Government to

landless poor persons, out of which about 400 house sites are

directly affected and the remaining are also likely to be

adversely impacted due to pollution and proximity to the

highway. The alignment passes in extremely close proximity to

sensitive and critical public infrastructure, including Khammam

District Collector's office, which houses several revenue courts

and is a noise-sensitive zone, being situated at a distance of

approximately 200 feet from the proposed alignment, and that

this aspect was specifically highlighted by the District Collector

in his letter dated 17.05.2022. The impugned alignment also

passes near important establishments including the

Government Medical College located at a distance of about 120

feet, a colony of landless poor consisting of approximately 500

house sites situated about 420 feet away, and V.

Venkatayapalem village having a population of about 5000

persons situated at a distance of about 300 meters, and further

that the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation are within

less than one kilometer from the alignment.

3.2. Petitioners further contend that due to the

establishment of the new District Collectorate, the proposed ring

road and other developmental activities, several thousands of

residential plots and constructions have come up in the area,

and the impugned alignment passes through such developed

and developing areas, contrary to the Environmental Impact

Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land

Acquisition. The alignment also passes in close proximity, at

about 400 feet distance, to Khanapuram Haveli village, thereby

violating the requirement under Environmental Impact

Assessment Guidelines to avoid human habitations and noise-

sensitive areas. The alignment is not in accordance with the

principle of crow-flight route and is instead semi-circular and

circuitous in nature, which is contrary to the guidelines issued

under Circular No. NH-15017/21/2018 by the Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways, which mandate that highways should

follow a straight-line alignment avoiding unnecessary deviation.

3.3. Petitioners contend that the Notifications under

Section 3A(1) of the Act were issued without conducting proper

surveys, without undertaking public consultations and without

obtaining prior Environmental Clearance, as is evident from the

dates mentioned in the Environmental Clearance certificates.

There is a clear contradiction in the stand of the Respondents,

inasmuch as while the Land Acquisition Committee is stated to

have approved the alignment on 20.08.2020, notifications under

Section 3A(1) were issued as early as 17.05.2019 vide S.O. No.

1914 (E), thereby demonstrating procedural irregularity. The

Environmental Clearance Certificate No. EC23A054TG132431

dated 23.01.2023 for the Khammam to Vijayawada stretch itself

indicates that the proposal was submitted only on 17.05.2022,

the Terms of Reference were granted on 26.07.2021, and the

public hearing was conducted on 15.03.2022, thereby clearly

establishing that the acquisition process commenced much

prior to compliance with environmental requirements.

3.4. Petitioners also contend that the Environmental

Clearance certificates contain incorrect, generalized and

misleading statements, including the assertion that the area is

predominantly agricultural and uninhabited and that wheat is a

major crop, which is factually incorrect, as the entire Khammam

Municipal Corporation area with a population of about five lakh

lies within a radius of 10 kilometers. The DPR consultant,

namely M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its report dated

November 2021, has stated that baseline environmental studies

were conducted only during April 2021 to June 2021, which

contradicts the issuance of notifications prior to such studies

and demonstrates that the process was undertaken in a

perfunctory and pre-determined manner. Separate

Environmental Clearance Certificates were obtained for

Warangal to Khammam stretch (EC No. EC23A034TG157248

dated 16.02.2023) and Khammam to Vijayawada stretch (EC

No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023), thereby evidencing

artificial segmentation of the project to avoid stricter scrutiny.

It is also contended, public hearings for environmental

clearance were conducted only in March 2022 and February

2023, long after issuance of notifications, thereby rendering the

entire process belated and contrary to law.

3.5. Petitioners contend that the respondents have failed

to consult local authorities, revenue officials, municipal bodies

and stakeholders prior to issuance of Section 3A notification,

which is a mandatory requirement under the applicable

guidelines. Respondents' assertion that the impugned alignment

does not interfere with the proposed ring road is incorrect, as

the highway, being elevated at about 15 feet, would physically

divide Khammam town and obstruct seamless urban

development, and construction of underpasses or flyovers would

require approval of the Union Government. The impugned

alignment would adversely affect drainage patterns and could

lead to flooding, as evidenced by recent rains which have

already caused inundation in parts of Khammam, and the

proposed highway may act as a barrier similar to a tank bund

obstructing natural flow of water.

3.6. Petitioners further contend that repeated issuance

of Section 3A notifications after lapse of earlier notifications

defeats the purpose of statutory timelines and is an abuse of

process, and that the respondents cannot issue successive

notifications without undertaking fresh consultations and

addressing earlier objections. Section 3A notification is a crucial

stage in the acquisition process and must contain sufficient

particulars of the land, and that failure to provide such

particulars deprives the affected persons of a meaningful

opportunity to file objections, thereby violating principles of

natural justice and Section 3A(2) of the Act.

3.7. Rejection of the District Collector's request dated

17.05.2022 for change of alignment vide letter dated 13.06.2022

is arbitrary and mala fide, as no substantial steps had been

taken at that time and even Environmental Clearance had not

been obtained. The concurrence given by the State Government

vide letter dated 01.02.2024 does not cure the earlier illegality,

and that the change in stance is due to political considerations

and not based on objective assessment of facts. Respondents

failed to adhere to the Environmental Impact Assessment

Guidelines, 2006 and the Manual of Guidelines on Land

Acquisition for National Highways, 2018, which have statutory

force, and that reliance solely on the National Highways Act,

1956 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is insufficient. Petitioners

contend that the impugned alignment is illegal even on the

ground that the width of the Greenfield Highway is proposed as

45 meters instead of the minimum required 60 meters.

3.8. Petitioners contend that the DPR report

recommending Option-1 alignment is arbitrary, cryptic and not

based on proper comparative analysis, and that alternative

alignments were not objectively evaluated, and the report

appears to be a tailor-made exercise. The entire process suffers

from mala fides, colourable exercise of power and violation of

statutory provisions, including deliberate segmentation of the

project to avoid environmental clearance requirements, as held

impermissible by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2866-2880 of 2011 (Union

of India vs. Kushala Shetty), interference by the Court is

warranted in cases where the acquisition is ex facie contrary to

law or vitiated by mala fides, both of which are present in the

instant case.

4. Heard 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, learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and

General Administration.

5. This Court, at the outset, finds that there is no

dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned Gazette

Notification has been issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act,

notifying the intention of the Central Government to acquire

certain lands for the purpose of formation of the Greenfield

Highway NH-163G. The scheme of the National Highways Act,

1956, in so far as acquisition of land is concerned, is a self-

contained code which prescribes a sequential and structured

procedure beginning with issuance of a preliminary notification

under Section 3A(1), followed by inviting objections from

interested persons under Section 3C, and culminating in a

declaration under Section 3D, upon consideration of such

objections. Issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) is only a

preliminary step which indicates the intention of the

Government to acquire the land and does not, by itself,

determine any rights conclusively, and that the statute

specifically provides an opportunity to the affected landowners

to file their objections under Section 3C within the prescribed

time.

6. It is to be noted, the contentions raised by

Petitioners primarily relate to the legality and propriety of the

alignment, alleged violations of Environmental Impact

Assessment Guidelines, alleged mala fides in the decision-

making process, non-compliance with statutory guidelines, and

other procedural irregularities. Such contentions, by their very

nature, involve examination of factual aspects including location

of alignment, impact on habitations. Compliance with

environmental norms, adequacy of particulars in the

notification, and other technical considerations, which

necessarily require detailed factual inquiry and evaluation by

the competent authority.

7. The National Highways Act, 1956 expressly provides

a mechanism under Section 3C whereby any person interested

in the land notified under Section 3A(1) may file objections to

the use of such land for the purpose mentioned in the

notification, and the competent authority is mandated to give an

opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order thereon. The

specific stand of Respondents that the acquisition proceedings

are presently at the stage of Section 3A notification and that no

declaration under Section 3D has been issued, thereby

indicating that the statutory process is still in progress and has

not attained finality.

8. When a statute provides a complete and efficacious

machinery for redressal of grievances, including an opportunity

of hearing and adjudication by a competent authority, the writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily

not to be invoked at an intermediate stage, unless exceptional

circumstances are made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has

consistently held that in matters of land acquisition under

special enactments, interference by the writ Court at a

preliminary stage is not warranted when the aggrieved party has

an effective alternative statutory remedy, and that the Court

should be slow in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in

such cases. This Court further observes that the issue relating

to fixation of alignment of National Highways involves highly

technical, economic and infrastructural considerations, which

fall within the domain of expert bodies such as the National

Highways Authority of India. It is well-settled that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held

that such matters, particularly relating to highway alignment

and infrastructure planning, are not ordinarily amenable to

judicial review under Article 226 unless there is a clear case of

mala fides or violation of statutory provisions. The Court, in

exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over the

decisions taken by expert bodies in technical matters.

9. Petitioners have an effective and adequate statutory

remedy under Section 3C of the Act to raise all objections

including those relating to alignment, environmental concerns,

alleged violations of guidelines, and adequacy of particulars in

the notification, before the competent authority. The issues

raised by Petitioners, including allegations of mala fides,

improper alignment, non-compliance with guidelines and

environmental norms, are mixed questions of fact and law

which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present writ

proceedings without a detailed factual inquiry, which is more

appropriately undertaken by the statutory authority in the first

instance. Entertaining the writ petition at this stage, without

requiring Petitioners to avail the statutory remedy, would

amount to short-circuiting the procedure prescribed under the

Act and bypassing the mechanism specifically designed by the

legislature.

10. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that judicial

discipline and settled principles governing exercise of writ

jurisdiction require that the Petitioners be relegated to the

statutory remedy available under the Act, particularly when no

exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been

demonstrated warranting interference at this stage. Adequacy or

otherwise of the particulars mentioned in Section 3A

notification, validity of alignment, and the alleged violations of

Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and other

manuals are all matters which can be effectively raised before

and considered by the competent authority under Section 3C.

This Court is thus satisfied that Writ Petition, at this stage, is

premature and entertaining the same would result in

interference with an ongoing statutory process, which is neither

warranted nor justified. Petitioners ought to have availed the

said statutory remedy by submitting their objections, raising all

grounds urged in the present writ petition including those

relating to alignment, alleged violations of statutory provisions,

Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, and other

contentions, before the competent authority in accordance with

law.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of,

leaving it open to Petitioners to file appropriate objections under

Section 3C of the Act within the time as may be permissible in

law, and seek redressal of their grievances before the competent

authority. If such objections are filed, the competent authority

shall consider the same objectively, afford reasonable

opportunity of hearing to Petitioners, and pass a reasoned order

strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court

has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions

raised by either party, and all issues are left open to be

adjudicated by the competent authority. No costs.

12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

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

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

07th April 2026

ksld