E Usha Rani And Another vs The Union Of India And 7 Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 433 Tel

Telangana High Court

E Usha Rani And Another vs The Union Of India And 7 Others 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. 3921 OF 2023

                         07.04.2026
Between:

E. Usha Rani & another
                                                   ..... Petitioners
And

The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Road & Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others
                                                ..... Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioners contend that petitioner No.1 is the owner

of landed property in Survey Nos. 256 and 257 of V.

Venkatayapalem Village of Raghunadhapalem Mandal,

Khammam District, Telangana, admeasuring 4,235 square

yards abutting 100 feet Wyra Road, petitioner No.2 is the owner

of landed property in Survey No.254 of the very same Village

and Mandal admeasuring 1,642 square yards. Both of them

contend that the said properties are worth more than Rs.20

crores in the open market and entire extent of their lands is

expected to be completely consumed by the impugned highway

alignment.

1.1. It is contended, the 1st respondent issued the

impugned notification dated 29.07.2022 under Section 3A(1) of

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

in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-I, Section 3, sub-

section (2), by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,

Government of India, and also in Hans India English daily

newspaper, Khammam Edition, inviting objections for

acquisition of lands in V. Venkatayapalem Village for laying the

proposed Green Field Highway from Khammam to Vijayawada in

Andhra Pradesh, passing near the new District Offices Complex

at V. Venkatayapalem Village on the outskirts of Khammam

city. Petitioners further contend that the land owners were kept

in the dark with regard to the details of the alignment as well as

the particulars of the affected lands and that the brief

particulars of the lands as required under Section 3A(2) of the

Act were not furnished in the impugned notification, and that

brief particulars cannot be equated with vague particulars.

1.2. The impugned notification was issued without

taking into consideration the latest developments on the

ground, namely, that Khammam Municipality was upgraded

into a Municipal Corporation in the year 2012, that Khammam

Urban Development Authority (K.U.D.A.) was formed, that

Khammam town has expanded rapidly and seamlessly beyond

V. Venkatayapalem Village over the last six years, and a District

Offices Complex was constructed between V. Venkatayapalem

Village and Khammam Town and inaugurated on 18.01.2023,

wherein about 1,600 employees are working and several

thousands of citizens visit the said offices daily, all of whom

would be subjected to sound and air pollution if the Green Field

Highway alignment passes through the said area.

1.3. Petitioners also contend that due to the

construction of the integrated Khammam District Offices

Complex, the entire surrounding area has become highly

commercial in nature and several persons have purchased sites

in the vicinity in anticipation of value appreciation without

knowledge of the highway alignment, which, according to them,

was kept secret by the NHAI. It is contended that the present

alignment would swallow almost all commercial sites in its path

and would separate the Khammam District Offices Complex

from the main Khammam town.

1.4. It is further contended, the proposed highway

passes as near as 150 feet from the District Offices Complex

and about 200 meters from V. Venkatayapalem Village, while

Khammam Municipal Corporation is situated at a distance of

about 1 kilometer, and the NHAI has ignored all these factors.

Petitioners also contend that V. Venkatayapalem Village is

proposed to be included within Khammam Municipal

Corporation and that, in such an event, the proposed highway

would pass through the municipal corporation limits, thereby

causing avoidable health hazards and inconvenience to lakhs of

people, and therefore the alignment requires reconsideration in

light of these developments.

1.5. Petitioners further contend that though NHAI had

considered two alternative alignments, one towards the East

and another towards the extreme East of the present alignment,

and initially selected the alignment towards the extreme East, it

subsequently shifted to the present alignment for reasons best

known to the respondents. Such shifting of alignment is biased

and motivated to benefit certain persons, causing huge loss to

the public exchequer and adversely affecting several hundreds

of site owners, despite availability of abundant low-cost land if

the alignment is shifted about 5 kilometers further east away

from Khammam Municipal Corporation. The District Collector,

Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to the

Principal Secretary, Road Transport and R&B Department and

to Respondents 3 and 4, strongly objected to the impugned

alignment and suggested change of alignment, thereby

substantiating the concerns of the local public, and that the 1st

petitioner has applied under the Right to Information Act for a

copy of the said communication and is awaiting the same.

1.6. It is also contended, all the public representatives of

Khammam are opposed to the impugned alignment, including

Shri Nama Nageswara Rao, Member of Lok Sabha from

Khammam, and Shri Vaddiraju Ravichandra, Member of Rajya

Sabha, who met the Union Transport Minister and urged for

change of alignment, and that Shri Puvvada Ajaykumar,

Telangana State Minister for Transport, has also visited the

agitating land-losers and expressed solidarity with them and

pledged support to their cause, and that several Village

Panchayats have passed Resolutions opposing the impugned

alignment, thereby demonstrating that the alignment is neither

agreeable nor useful to the local public.

1.7. Petitioners contend that the entire process of

finalization of alignment lacks transparency and is therefore,

illegal and the district revenue authorities were kept unaware of

the alignment until recently, resulting in revenue officers

issuing NOCs for conversion of the affected lands for commercial

purposes under the NALA Act upon collection of fees, and that

the Sub-Registrar Office continues to register alienations of

these lands upon collection of fees, and that the respondents

selectively disclosed the alignment to some persons while

keeping it secret from others. Petitioners further contend that

petitioner No.1, through her clerk, had submitted Applications

under the Right to Information Act on 06.10.2021 seeking

information regarding the proposal and finalization of the

highway alignment and whether recent developments were

considered; by reply dated 26.10.2021 the information was

denied citing court orders and instructions from higher

authorities, and subsequently, by reply dated 17.11.2021, it

was stated that the alignment had already been finalized and

DPR prepared and therefore could not be changed "at this

juncture", in response to RTI applications dated 22.10.2021,

25.10.2021 and 14.11.2022 vide reference No. NHAI/Piu-

Kmm/K-V/Rep/2022/7634.

1.8. Petitioners further contend that the impugned

notification dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of the

Act is in blatant violation of the existing enactments,

instructions, rules and guidelines of the Union Government.

Petitioners also contend that the impugned notification is illegal

and irregular as it violates Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as

it fails to provide adequate description of the land, thereby

preventing land owners from knowing whether their lands are

affected and to what extent, and consequently depriving them of

an effective opportunity to file precise objections, and that

proceeding to issue notification under Section 3D on the basis

of such defective process is unjust.

1.9. Petitioners further contend that respondents have

failed to consider the harmful effects of sound and air pollution

on the residents of V. Venkatayapalem and on those working in

the District Offices Complex, and that the Pre-Feasibility Report

has selected the alignment solely on the basis of minimizing tree

felling without considering the impact on human habitations or

the increased cost of land acquisition due to passage through

commercial areas. The Seventh Report of the Committee on

Estimates, 2020-21, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,

submitted to the Seventeenth Lok Sabha on 09.02.2021,

stipulates that Green Field Highways should follow a crow-flight

route with minimal proximity to towns and habitations, which

requirement has not been followed in the present case.

1.10. It is further contended, the impugned alignment

violates the guidelines issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, vide Notification

dated 26.02.2018 bearing No. NH-15017/21/2018-P&M, which

mandates that green-field alignments should, as far as possible,

follow a crow-flight route away from habitations, and that the

present alignment passing within 1 kilometer of Khanımam

Corporation, 200 meters from V. Venkatayapalem and 150 feet

from the Collectorate is in complete violation of the said

guidelines. Petitioners further contend that the representation

made by the District Collector dated 17.05.2022 requesting

change of alignment ought to have been duly considered by the

respondents. The actions of the respondents are in violation of

the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for

Highways issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

Government of India, and that the project being a multi-state

project exceeding 20 kilometers falls under Category "A"

requiring compliance with environmental clearance norms, and

that the respondents have not published any notification

regarding environmental clearance nor conducted social impact

assessment.

1.11. It is stated, respondents ought to have considered

an alternative alignment on the western side of Khammam

connecting to the Suryapeta Devarapally Green Field Highway,

which would have resulted in saving thousands of crores of

rupees and at least one year in construction time, besides

avoiding construction of a bridge over the Muneru River. The

reply of the 4th respondent stating that the alignment cannot be

changed at this stage due to advanced DPR works is

inappropriate. Restricting the objection process only to affected

land owners while excluding public representatives and general

public who are affected by pollution and inconvenience violates

principles of natural justice and renders the provisions

unconstitutional to that extent. Respondents ignored the

increase in cost of land acquisition and the heavy loss to land

owners arising from acquisition of highly commercial lands.

1.12. Petitioners further contend that the impugned

alignment violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it

disproportionately affects owners of commercial lands as

compared to agricultural lands, thereby causing unequal

treatment. Unless the operation of the impugned notification

bearing No. S.O.3563(E) dated 29.07.2022 is suspended, they

would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be

compensated, and therefore seek quashing of the notification

and consequential reliefs.

2. Respondent No.2 filed a counter contending that

the present Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on

facts and that the allegations made by the petitioners are false,

untenable and devoid of merit, and that the notification issued

under Section 3A(1) of the Act has been issued strictly in

accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The notification

issued under Section 3A(1) contains all the necessary

particulars as required under Section 3A(2) of the Act, including

the survey numbers, extent, nature and type of land, and that

the names of the land owners are required to be furnished at

the stage of declaration under Section 3D after conducting joint

measurement survey.

2.1. It is also contended that the impugned notification

was duly published in the Gazette of India and in two local

newspapers on 04.09.2022 inviting objections from all

interested and affected persons, thereby affording due

opportunity in accordance with law. The determination of

compensation is governed by the provisions of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly under

Sections 26 to 30, and that the award enquiry under Section 3G

of the1956 Act is yet to be completed. The land owners were

kept in the dark is incorrect and that due process has been

followed at every stage. It is further contended that

environmental clearance has been duly obtained for the project,

with Terms of Reference having been issued on 26.07.2021 and

Environmental Clearance having been granted on 23.01.2023

vide EC No. EC23A034TG132431 after conducting the requisite

public hearings.

2.2. Respondent No.2 further contends that the project

forms part of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under

Bharatınala Pariyojana Phase-I, which is intended to improve

inter-state connectivity and promote regional development, and

that the alignment has been finalized after detailed surveys,

studies and expert consultations. The alignment was approved

in meetings held on 03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020, and that the

State Government has conveyed its concurrence for the said

alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024. The representation

made by the District Collector, Khammam, dated 17.05.2022

was duly considered, and it was concluded that change of

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

stage of land acquisition and environmental clearance.

2.3. Respondent No.2 contends that the allegations of

pollution, secrecy and bias are baseless and unfounded, and

that any conversion of land after issuance of notification under

Section 3A cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of

determining compensation. Reliance is placed on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kushala

Shetty {(2011) 12 SCC 69} to submit that matters relating to

fixation of highway alignment fall within the domain of experts

and that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited.

2.4. Respondent No.2 also contends that a fresh

notification under Section 3A has been issued on 26.02.2024

covering an extent of 25.52 hectares, and that the land

acquisition process is at an advanced stage and the

implementation of the project is being delayed due to the

pendency of the present proceedings. Petitioners have

challenged the notification dated 29.07.2022 issued under

Section 3A(1) of the Act for acquisition of lands in

V. Venkatayapalem Village, Khammam District, for laying the

proposed Greenfield Highway from Khammam to Vijayawada in

Andhra Pradesh. The allegation of petitioners that impugned

notification violates the Environmental Impact Assessment

Guidance Manual for Highways is misconceived, and submits

that under clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central Government is

empowered to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the

said Act.

2.5. Respondent No.2 further contends that in exercise

of the said powers, the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

Notification dated 27.01.1994 was issued mandating prior

environmental clearance for 32 categories of projects listed in

Schedule-1 based on investment criteria, which was

subsequently amended on 07.07.2004 making EIA a statutory

requirement for specified construction and development

activities. Thereafter, Notification dated 14.09.2006, known as

the EIA Notification, 2006, was issued superseding the earlier

notification dated 27.01.1994. It is also contended, under the

EIA Notification, 2006, all new projects or activities listed in the

Schedule, including expansion or modernization beyond

specified thresholds, are required to obtain prior environmental

clearance from the Central Government or the State Level

Environment Impact Assessment Authority, as the case may be.

2.6. Respondent No.2 contends that under the

provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, prior to its amendment

in 2013, new National Highways and expansion of National

Highways greater than 30 kilometers involving additional right

of way greater than 20 meters and involving land acquisition or

passing through more than one State were required to obtain

prior environmental clearance. By amendment Notification

bearing S.O.2559(E) dated 22.08.2013, the requirement of prior

environmental clearance was modified to apply to expansion of

National Highways greater than 100 kilometers involving

additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40

meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on re-alignments

or by-passes. As per the EIA Notification, 2006 and the

amendment dated 22.08.2013, prior environmental clearance is

required only when both the threshold length and the width

conditions are satisfied.

2.7. Respondent No.2 further contends that highways

fall under entry 7(1) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification,

2006, which deals with physical infrastructure projects

including highways. In compliance with the EIA Notification,

2006, an on line Application was received on 16.06.2021 vide

proposal No. IA/TG/NCP/215098/2021 from the project

proponent, namely NHAI, for development of a 4-lane access

controlled new Greenfield Highway section of Khammam to

Vijayawada of length 89.429 kilometers from V.

Venkatayapalem village to Jakkampudi village under the Other

Economic Corridor in the States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh. The proposal was considered by the Expert Appraisal

Committee in its meeting held on 12.07.2021, pursuant to

which Terms of Reference were granted on 26.07.2021.

2.8. Respondent No.2 also contends that environmental

clearance for the said project was subsequently granted on

23.01.2023 subject to certain specific and general conditions.

An Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2014 was issued

prescribing that credible documents regarding land acquisition

status are required to be produced before the Expert Appraisal

Committee or State Expert Appraisal Committee at the time of

appraisal of projects for grant of environmental clearance. As

per the said Office Memorandum dated 07.10.2014, in cases

where land is proposed to be acquired through Government

intervention, a copy of the preliminary notification issued under

the Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

is required to be produced, and in cases of private negotiations,

credible documents showing willingness of land owners are

required.

2.9. Respondent No.2 finally contends that the

impugned notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport

and Highways for acquisition of land was considered as a pre-

requisite document by the Expert Appraisal Committee prior to

grant of environmental clearance for the project.

3. Respondents 3 to 5 also filed a counter contending

that Writ Petition is neither maintainable in law nor on facts

and that the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court

with unclean hands without placing material facts and that Writ

Petition is false, frivolous and vexatious. The entire process of

acquisition of land is governed by the provisions of the Act and

that Section 3A deals with the power to acquire land, and that

every notification issued under Section 3A(1) contains a brief

description of the land including survey number, area, nature

and type of land, and that the details of land owners are

furnished at the stage of Section 3D declaration.

3.1. It is also contended that it is not necessary that a

stretch must be notified as a National Highway under Section 2

of the National Highways Act, 1956 before initiating acquisition

proceedings under Section 3 for construction of a National

Highway. The impugned notification was duly published in

newspapers on 04.09.2022 inviting objections from interested

and affected persons and that the substance of the notification

under Section 3A(1) of the Act was published in two local daily

newspapers in compliance with the statutory requirements. A

general public notice was published in Hans India newspaper

on 04.09.2022 inviting claims and objections along with

documentary evidence to establish ownership of land and to

indicate expected compensation.

3.2. The claim of petitioners that their properties are

worth more than Rs. 20 crores in the open market is false and

that the petitioners have not produced any documentary proof

in support of the said assertion. The provisions of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are applicable for

determination of compensation under the National Highways

Act, 1956, and compensation is to be determined in accordance

with Sections 26 to 30 of the said Act based on basic market

value fixed by the Sub-Registrar Office and average sale deeds

in the concerned village. The notification under Section 3G and

award enquiry are yet to be completed and that the Competent

Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) cum Revenue Divisional

Officer (RDO) will pass the award in respect of the lands and

structures of the petitioners in accordance with law.

3.3. The impugned notification dated 29.07.2022 issued

under Section 3A(1) of the Act was duly published in the Gazette

of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (2), and

in Hans India English daily newspaper, Khammam edition,

inviting objections for acquisition of lands in V. Venkatayapalem

village for laying the proposed Green Field Highway from

Khammam to Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh. The allegation of

petitioners that land owners were kept in the dark regarding the

alignment and affected lands is false and denied, and that

Section 3A(2) requires only brief description of land including

survey number, area, nature and type, and that details of land

owners are furnished at the stage of Section 3D declaration.

3.4. It is further contended that the allegation of

petitioners regarding sound and air pollution is baseless and

that the petitioners have created a false story, and that the

NHAI has submitted an application for environmental clearance,

and that Terms of Reference were issued on 26.07.2021 and

Environmental Clearance was granted on 23.01.2023 vide EC

No. EC23A034TG132431. The allegation that the present

alignment is swallowing commercial sites and separating the

Khammam District Offices Complex from the main town is false

and denied, and that the proposed Green Field Highway is

intended for development and does not separate the city.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty {(2011) 12 SCC

69}, wherein it has been held that NHAI is an expert body and

that matters relating to highway alignment involve technical

expertise and that the scope of judicial review is limited, and

that courts cannot examine the viability and feasibility of

alignment unless there is violation of statutory provisions or

mala fides.

3.5. Respondents No.3 to 5 further contend that the

grounds raised in the writ petition are untenable and that the

petitioners are attempting to stall a road project undertaken in

larger public interest for economic development of the nation

and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In

response to representations made by public representatives,

Shri Nitin Gadkari, Hon'ble Minister for Road Transport and

Highways, Government of India, has clarified that the alternate

alignment suggested is not suitable as per National Highways

standards and that the alignment finalized by NHAI is based on

detailed surveys conducted by consultants, and that at this

stage change of alignment is neither feasible nor advisable in

view of advanced stage of land acquisition and other clearances

and the likelihood of delay and legal complications.

3.6. The allegations regarding secrecy and continued

registration of lands are false and denied, and petitioners

themselves have admitted that the notification was published in

Hans India newspaper and therefore there is no secrecy in the

process. Any conversion or change in land use permitted after

issuance of preliminary notification under Section 3A cannot be

considered for determination of market value and that such

claims are not admissible unless conversion was obtained prior

to publication of the Section 3A notification in the Official

Gazette, and that the Competent Authorities for Land

Acquisition are required to ensure compliance in this regard.

3.7. Respondent No.5 filed counter contending that the

process of land acquisition is governed by the provisions of the

National Highways Act, 1956, and that Section 3A of the said

Act deals with the power to acquire land; every notification

under Section 3A(1) contains a brief description of the land

including survey number, area, nature and type of land, while

the names of land owners are furnished at the stage of

declaration under Section 3D after conducting joint

measurement survey. It is also contended that it is not

necessary that a stretch must be notified as a National Highway

under Section 2 of the Act prior to initiation of acquisition

proceedings under Section 3, and that the notification under

Section 3A(1) has been issued and published in accordance with

law.

3.8. Respondent No.5 further contends that the

Notification was duly published in newspapers on 04.09.2022

inviting objections from interested and affected persons, and

that the substance of the notification was published in two local

daily newspapers in compliance with Section 3A(3) of the Act. A

general public notice was issued in two local newspapers

inviting claims and objections along with documentary proof of

ownership and expected compensation. Petitioners may have

lands in V. Venkatayapalem Village, however, determination of

compensation is governed by the provisions of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in accordance with

the First Schedule and the rehabilitation and resettlement

provisions under the Second and Third Schedules, and that

compensation is determined under Sections 26 to 30 of the said

Act based on the basic market value fixed by the Sub-Registrar

Office and the average of sale deeds in the concerned village.

3.9. Respondent No.5 also contends that the

notification under Section 3G and the award enquiry are yet to

be completed and that the Competent Authority for Land

Acquisition (CALA) cum Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) will

pass the award in respect of the lands and structures of the

petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the National

Highways Act, 1956 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The

allegation that the impugned notification dated 29.07.2022 was

not properly issued or published is false and denied, and the

notification was duly published in the Gazette of India,

Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (2), and in two

local newspapers inviting objections for acquisition of lands in

V. Venkatayapalem village for the proposed Green Field Highway

from Khammam to Vijayawada.

3.10. Respondent No.5 also contends that the allegation

that land owners were kept in the dark regarding the alignment

or details of the affected lands is incorrect, and that the

provisions of Section 3A(2) have been complied with by

providing brief description of the land including survey number,

area, nature and type of land, and that the names of land

owners are provided at the stage of Section 3D. The allegation of

petitioners regarding sound and air pollution is false and

petitioners have made incorrect statements; NHAI submitted

Application for environmental clearance and Terms of Reference

were issued on 26.07.2021 and Environmental Clearance was

granted on 23.01.2023 vide EC No. EC23A034TG132431, after

which the notification was issued.

3.11. It is also contended, the allegations that the present

alignment is swallowing commercial sites and separating the

Khammam District Offices Complex from Khammam town are

false and denied, and that the Green Field Highway is intended

for development and does not separate the city. keeping in view

national interest, regional development and improvement of

inter-state connectivity, the Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways and NHAI approved the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor

under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I, and that the Khammam-

Vijayawada section of NH-163G forms part of the said corridor.

Due care has been taken in fixing the alignment by considering

optimal and feasible alignment options and by avoiding existing

habitations, settlements, water bodies, religious structures and

eco-sensitive zones, and that after reconnaissance survey and

detailed deliberations, the DPR Consultant proposed various

alignment options including the present alignment.

3.12. A meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under the

Chairmanship of the Secretary (Road Transport and Highways),

New Delhi, wherein the alignment options for the Nagpur-

Vijayawada Corridor were deliberated and the present alignment

(Option-1) bypassing hills and forest sections was agreed upon,

and that the Land Acquisition Committee of NHAI Headquarters

in its meeting held on 20.08.2020 accorded approval for the

present alignment of the Mancherial-Vijayawada corridor with

45 meters right of way. Earlier notifications under Section 3A

had lapsed and that a fresh notification dated 26.02.2024 was

issued covering 25.52 hectares including lands in

V. Venkatayapalem, Vandanam and other villages, duly

providing brief description of lands in compliance with Section

3A(2) of the Act, and that the said notification was published in

newspapers namely The Hindu and Mana Telangana inviting

objections under Section 3C.

3.13. Respondent No.5 further contends that the format

adopted for publication of Section 3A notifications is

standardized and is being followed uniformly across the

country, and that the names of land owners are furnished at the

stage of Section 3D after conducting joint measurement survey

and enjoyment survey, and that only after publication of Section

3A notification the authority is empowered under Section 3B to

enter the land for survey and ascertain exact details. The

District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022, had

requested change of alignment, and that the said request was

examined and replied to by the NHAI Regional Office vide letter

dated 13.06.2022 stating that change of alignment at that stage

was not feasible in view of the status of land acquisition,

environmental clearance and other project-related issues.

3.14. Respondent No.5 further contends that thereafter,

the State Government, after careful consideration, conveyed its

concurrence to the original alignment finalized by NHAI dated

01.02.2024. Environmental clearance has been obtained in

accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006 for development of a

4-lane access controlled Greenfield Highway of length 89.429

kilometers from V. Venkatayapalem Village to Jakkampudi

village under the Other Economic Corridor programme in the

States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, vide EC identification

No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023, and that Terms of

Reference were issued on 26.07.2021. It is also stated, public

hearings were conducted in Khammam District of Telangana

and Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh after due publication of

notices, and that environmental concerns raised by the public

were addressed before granting environmental clearance.

3.15. Respondent No.5 also contends that environmental

clearance was published in newspapers namely The Hindu and

Mana Telangana on 23.01.2023 and was also displayed on

notice boards of the Additional Collector, Chief Executive

Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam and concerned

Tahsildars for a period of 30 days. The District Collector,

Khammam vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the

Member Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of India, stated that

there would be no major impact on forest and environment in

Khammam District due to the project.

3.16. It is further contended, land acquisition for the

project is being undertaken in accordance with the National

Highways Act, 1956 read with the provisions of the RFCTLARR

Act, 2013 and that compensation will be paid accordingly. Since

the State Government has conveyed concurrence for the

alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, a fresh notification

under Section 3A has been issued on 26.02.2024. Reliance is

placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union

of India v. Kushala Shetty (2011) 12 SCC 69, wherein it was

been held that NHAI is an expert body and that the courts have

limited scope of judicial review in matters relating to highway

alignment. Respondent No 5 further contends that petitioners

are attempting to stall a project undertaken in larger public

interest for economic development and that the grounds raised

are untenable.

3.17. Shri Nitin Gadkari, Hon'ble Minister for Road

Transport and Highways, Government of India, has clarified in

response to representations that the alternate alignment

suggested is not suitable as per National Highways standards

and that the alignment finalized by NHAI is based on detailed

surveys and therefore cannot be changed at this stage.

Respondent No.5 further contends that the allegations regarding

secrecy and continued registration of lands are false and denied,

and that the notification was duly published and there was no

secrecy in the process.

3.18. Respondent No.5 also contends that any conversion

or change in land use permitted after issuance of preliminary

notification under Section 3A cannot be considered for

determination of market value and that such claims are

admissible only if conversion was obtained prior to publication

of the Section 3A notification. There is no prima facie case or

balance of convenience in favour of petitioners and that in larger

public interest, the project is required to be completed within

the stipulated time, and Package-1 of the Khammam-

Vijayawada section was awarded on 29.03.2023 and Concession

Agreement was executed on 17.08.2023, but commencement of

construction has been delayed due to land acquisition, which is

now at an advanced stage, and therefore petitioners' claims are

not tenable.

4. Sri Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Padma Rao

Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.

5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the

National Highways Act, 1956 provides a complete and self-

contained statutory mechanism governing acquisition of land for

the purposes of national highways. Section 3A contemplates

issuance of a preliminary notification expressing the intention of

the Central Government to acquire land and inviting objections

from interested persons; Section 3C provides for consideration

of such objections by the competent authority, Section 3D

contemplates declaration of acquisition; and Section 3G

provides for determination of compensation. The statutory

scheme is thus comprehensive and provides for adequate

safeguards to affected land owners at various stages of the

acquisition process.

6. The principal grievance of petitioners is twofold:

firstly, that the impugned notification does not comply with the

requirement under Section 3A(2) of the Act inasmuch as it does

not contain adequate particulars of the lands proposed to be

acquired; and secondly, that the alignment of the proposed

highway is arbitrary, contrary to applicable guidelines and

environmental norms, and has been finalized without due

consideration of relevant factors.

7. Insofar as the contention relating to non-

compliance with Section 3A(2) is concerned, it is to be noted

that the said provision requires that every notification under

Section 3A(1) shall give a brief description of the land. The

respondents have specifically asserted, both in their counter

affidavits and by placing material on record, that the notification

contains details such as survey numbers, extent, nature and

classification of land. It is further clarified that the names of

land owners and precise extent of land to be acquired are

ascertained only after conducting joint measurement survey,

which is undertaken subsequent to issuance of the Section 3A

notification and prior to issuance of declaration under Section

3D.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that

statutory scheme under the Act itself contemplates a phased

and progressive disclosure of particulars. At the stage of Section

3A, only a brief description sufficient to identify the land is

required, whereas detailed particulars are furnished at the

subsequent stage. Therefore, the contention that the impugned

notification is vitiated for want of exhaustive particulars cannot

be accepted.

9. The further contention of petitioners that they were

deprived of an effective opportunity to file objections is also

without merit. The material on record clearly indicates that the

notification was published in the Gazette of India as well as in

two local newspapers on 04.09.2022 inviting objections from all

interested persons. The statutory requirement under Section

3A(3) having been complied with, the plea of denial of

opportunity cannot be sustained. The principal thrust of

petitioners' challenge relates to the alignment of the proposed

Greenfield Highway. Petitioners have raised several contentions

in this regard, including proximity of the alignment to

habitations, the District Offices Complex, commercial

establishments, and alleged non-consideration of alternative

alignments.

10. While these contentions reflect concerns of the

petitioners, it is well settled that fixation of alignment for

national highways is a matter involving complex technical,

economic and administrative considerations. Factors such as

feasibility, terrain, environmental impact, connectivity, cost

implications and overall public interest are required to be

evaluated by expert bodies.

11. The material placed on record by the respondents

indicates that the alignment has been finalized after detailed

surveys and deliberations, including consideration of multiple

alignment options by the DPR consultants, deliberations in

meetings held on 03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020, and subsequent

approval by competent authorities. It is also brought on record

that the State Government has conveyed its concurrence to the

finalized alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024. In such

circumstances, this Court cannot substitute its own view for

that of expert authorities in matters relating to technical

feasibility and alignment, unless it is demonstrated that the

decision is vitiated by mala fides or is in clear violation of

statutory provisions.

12. The contention of petitioners that the alignment is

contrary to guidelines and environmental considerations has

also been examined. Respondents have placed on record that

environmental clearance has been obtained on 23.01.2023 after

due process, including issuance of Terms of Reference on

26.07.2021 and conduct of public hearings in the affected

areas. The environmental clearance having been granted by the

competent authority under the applicable statutory framework,

this Court does not find any ground to hold that the project is

being implemented in violation of environmental norms.

13. The allegations relating to lack of transparency,

bias, and non-consideration of representations have been

specifically denied by the respondents. On the contrary, the

record indicates that the representation made by the District

Collector dated 17.05.2022 was duly considered and a decision

was taken that change of alignment was not feasible in view of

the advanced stage of the project. The contention relating to

availability of alternative alignments and alleged higher cost of

acquisition is also a matter within the domain of policy and

technical assessment, and cannot be adjudicated in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

14. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs.

Kushala Shetty {(2011) 12 SCC 69}, wherein it has been

categorically held that NHAI is an expert body and that courts

are not equipped to examine the viability and feasibility of

particular alignments, and that the scope of judicial review in

such matters is extremely limited. Applying the ratio of the

aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered view that in

the absence of any material demonstrating violation of statutory

provisions or mala fides, interference with the impugned

notification is not warranted.

15. This Court also finds that the statutory scheme

under the National Highways Act, 1956 provides an effective

and efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioners. The

petitioners have the right to file objections under Section 3C, to

participate in the proceedings relating to determination of

compensation under Section 3G, and to avail further remedies

as provided under the Act. It is a well settled principle that

when a statute provides a complete machinery for redressal of

grievances, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to

be invoked at an interlocutory stage, unless exceptional

circumstances are made out. In the present case, no such

exceptional circumstance is demonstrated.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is

satisfied that the impugned notification does not suffer from any

illegality, arbitrariness or procedural irregularity warranting

interference, and that the issues raised by the petitioners are

either premature or fall within the domain of statutory

authorities and expert bodies.

17. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds

that Writ Petition is not maintainable at this stage, particularly

in light of availability of an effective alternative remedy under

the National Highways Act, 1956.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of,

leaving it open to petitioners to avail the remedies available

under the Act, including filing objections under Section 3C and

participating in the proceedings for determination of

compensation under Section 3G. No costs.

19. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any shall stand closed.

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

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

07th April, 2026

ksld