[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Papineni Venkateswarlu 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. 20230 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Papineni Venkateshwarlu & others
..... Petitioners
And
The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners contend that as per the letter of the
NHAI Project Implementation Unit-1, Khammam dated
08.02.2024, the impugned Nagpur to Vijayawada NH-163G
Greenfield Highway alignment was initially approved on
03.01.2019 by NHAI and subsequently approved by the Land
Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, and thereafter successive
notifications have been issued under Section 3A(1) of the
National Highways Act, 1956, culminating in Notification No.
S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 and the declaration under
Section 3D(1) vide Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023
for a stretch of 16.6 km, thereby subjecting the Petitioners to
prolonged uncertainty and mental agony from 2019 till date.
1.1. Petitioners further contend that repeated re-
issuance of notifications after lapse of earlier notifications is
arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the intent of the National
Highways Act, 1956, and that such reissuance cannot be
mechanical but must be justified by taking into account
changes that occurred during the intervening period, including
stakeholder concerns, and must necessarily be preceded by
fresh surveys and meaningful public consultations.
1.2. It is also contended that the District Collector,
Khammam, by letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to the
authorities concerned through the Chief Secretary, Government
of Telangana, had specifically pointed out that the impugned
alignment was finalized without consultation with local bodies
such as Khammam Municipality, R&B 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 rendering the cost of acquisition for the
impugned alignment exorbitantly high, and also pointed out
that the State Government had planned a ring road for
Khammam with allocation of Rs 200 crores for land acquisition.
1.3. The District Collector, in the said letter dated
17.05.2022, further stated that the entire city of Khammam falls
within 15 km aerial distance from the project boundary, thereby
adversely affecting nearly 5 lac population, and that the area
has already undergone urbanization due to the construction of
Collectorate near V. Venkatayapalem and the proposed ring
road, resulting in severe loss of commercial house plots to the
affected persons. Petitioners further contend that the Member of
Parliament, Lok Sabha, Sri Nama Nageswara Rao, addressed
representation to the Union Minister for Road Transport and
Highways requesting that the impugned alignment be shifted by
at least 5 km in view of the State's master plan for Khammam
ring road and the consequent urbanization, and that two
Members of the Rajya Sabha also addressed similar
representations seeking change of alignment.
1.4. Petitioners also contend that several similarly-
situated land losers approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos.
3921 of 2023, 20359 of 2023, 9109 of 2024 and 14632 of 2024
and obtained interim orders, thereby demonstrating the
widespread grievance against the impugned alignment. It is
further contended, the impugned Gazette Notification issued
under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is in
clear violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as it does
not contain proper and sufficient particulars of the lands
proposed to be acquired, and only vague and misleading
particulars were furnished so as to deprive the affected persons
of an effective and meaningful opportunity to object.
1.5. Respondents, it is stated, deliberately published the
impugned notifications in newspapers such as Hans India and
Mana Telangana, which have limited circulation, with the
intention of avoiding public notice and preventing affected
persons from raising objections. The impugned action is in
derogation of the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for
National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956,
particularly the requirement that the DPR consultant or
concerned officer must provide an indicative assessment of the
tentative cost of land acquisition based on prevailing rates prior
to issuance of notification under Section 3D, and that if such
cost is prohibitively high, appropriate changes in alignment
ought to be considered, which was not done in the present case.
1.6. Petitioners contend that Respondents have violated
the guidelines relating to segmentation of project length, which
mandate issuance of composite notifications for the jurisdiction
of one competent authority, and Respondents have deliberately
bifurcated the project into stretches of less than 30 km to
circumvent legal requirements and avoid proper scrutiny,
without consulting the District Collector on the issue of land
acquisition cost, despite the Collector having indicated the high
cost of land at Rs.1 crore per acre. It is also contended, the
impugned alignment passes within a few feet of the newly
constructed Collectorate, and despite the District Collector's
recommendation for change of alignment, in view of exorbitant
costs and public impact, the Respondents failed to consider the
same.
1.7. Petitioners also contend that the impugned
notification is in violation of the guidelines relating to Greenfield
Highways, which emphasize the possibility of adopting
alternative alignments a few kilometers away so as to achieve
better outcomes with reasonable cost. The width of the project
at 45 meters near V. Venkatayapalem is contrary to the
prescribed norms of NHAI, which require a minimum Right of
Way of 60 meters for a 4/6/8 lane Greenfield Highway and 90
meters for an expressway, and that such deviation renders the
project illegal and contrary to long-term planning requirements
for accommodating traffic growth for the next 30 to 40 years.
1.8. Petitioners further contend that the guidelines
mandate acquisition of entire Right of Way of 60 to 70 meters
for Greenfield Highways to ensure provision for upgradation and
service roads, which has not been adhered to in the present
case. The impugned alignment does not follow the crow-flight
route principle as required under the guidelines, which stipulate
that Greenfield alignments should, as far as possible, maintain
a straight route with minimal deviation and adequate distance
from existing habitations. Petitioners contend that the
impugned Greenfield Highway alignment is in violation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines dated 14.09.2006
and amended on 01.12.2009, inasmuch as the project was
wrongly categorized as Category 'B' instead of Category 'A' and
that Environmental Clearance was obtained under mistaken
identity, rendering the same illegal.
1.9. Petitioners further contend that as per the EIA
Guidelines, projects with Right of Way exceeding 30 km in
length and more than 20 meters in width and involving inter-
state connectivity fall under Category 'A' requiring extensive
stakeholder consultations both prior to and after Environmental
Clearance and Respondents have deliberately segmented the
project into stretches of less than 30 km, including the present
stretch of 16.6 km, to circumvent these requirements. It is also
contended, such segmentation is impermissible in law in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
4035-4037 of 2020 (National Highways Authority of India v.
Pandarinathan Govindarajulu).
1.10. Petitioners further contend that the impugned
alignment is in violation of the EIA Guidelines relating to project
description, which mandate consideration of existing
development plans, alternative alignments, land acquisition
details and overall suitability of the project, and that the
alignment was finalized without consulting local authorities, as
specifically pointed out by the District Collector in his letter
dated 17.05.2022. The impugned alignment violates EIA
Guidelines relating to land use and environmental sensitivity,
which require assessment of master plans, identification of
sensitive areas such as hospitals, schools, places of worship
and community facilities within 15 km, and that the entire
Khammam city falls within such radius affecting nearly 5 lakh
population.
1.11. Petitioners also contend that the impugned
alignment is contrary to the mitigation measures prescribed
under the EIA Guidelines for air pollution, which require
selection of alignments avoiding proximity to residential areas,
schools and hospitals. The impugned alignment is also in
violation of mitigation measures relating to noise pollution,
which require development of bypasses to avoid noise-sensitive
areas, and that a bypass road or selection of alternative
alignments 'B' or 'C' would have addressed these concerns. The
impugned alignment passes within a few feet of the District
Collectorate, which houses revenue courts, and also near
Harvest Public School, Government Medical College and V.
Venkatayapalem Village, all of which are noise-sensitive and
critical establishments.
1.12. Petitioners also contend that the impugned
alignment is mala fide in its directional planning, as instead of
following a shorter crow-flight route from the western side of
Khammam, Respondents have chosen to deviate towards the
eastern side and take a turn, unnecessarily crossing the
Muneru river and increasing the length of the highway. Such
deviation is intentional and aimed at benefiting certain
influential persons at the cost of public interest and public
exchequer, as demonstrated in the pictorial representation filed
as Ex.P3. It is further contend that Respondents acted in haste
and in a clandestine manner to avoid objections from the public,
by issuing notifications in lesser-known newspapers, without
informing local government departments, public representatives
or the general public, and without providing adequate
particulars as required under Section 3A(2).
1.13. Petitioners also contend that several Gram
Panchayats adjacent to Khammam city have passed resolutions
opposing the impugned alignment, and have also issued letters
stating that they were unaware of the Environmental Clearance
obtained by NHAI, thereby demonstrating absence of public
consultation. Respondents have acted in willful violation of
norms, as evident from the reply under the Right to Information
Act dated 08.02.2024, wherein it was stated that alignment had
been finalized after deliberations between the Chairman of NHAI
and the State Government and that no change would be made,
without disclosing the date of such decision, which could not
have preceded the District Collector's letter dated 17.05.2022.
1.14. Petitioners further contend that approvals dated
03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020 are liable to be held illegal in light
of subsequent developments and objections raised. The
information sought under the Right to Information Act was
denied by reply dated 26.10.2021 citing an Office Memorandum
dated 04.08.2021 and a High Court judgment dated
09.07.2021, without furnishing copies thereof, indicating mala
fide intention to suppress relevant information. Respondents
acted mala fide as the Executive Summary dated November
2021 submitted by ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
states that baseline study was conducted between April 2021
and June 2021, whereas notifications had already been issued
earlier in 2019 and on 17.05.2021, indicating premeditated and
perfunctory action.
1.15. Petitioners further contend that selection of
alignment "A" Over alternatives 'B' and 'C' is arbitrary and mala
fide, as the consultant failed to conduct proper comparative
analysis, provided vague observations regarding tree felling
without quantitative data, and failed to consider other
parameters under the guidelines. Respondents failed to consult
the District Collector, local authorities, public representatives
and affected landowners, and failed to consider EIA Guidelines,
Land Acquisition Guidelines and mitigation measures.
Respondents are not respecting the judicial process, as despite
interim orders passed by this Court in respect of certain lands,
they continue to issue notifications and finalize alignment in
adjacent lands, which would create complications in the event of
success of the Petitioners. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty in
Civil Appeal Nos. 2866-2880 of 2011, highway alignments can
be interfered with in cases of mala fides and statutory
violations, both of which are present ex facie in the present
case.
2. Respondents submit that Writ Petition is not
maintainable either in law or on facts and is based on incorrect,
misleading and untenable allegations and Petitioners have not
made out any case warranting interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Respondent No.3 - NHAI is a statutory
authority constituted under an Act of Parliament and is
entrusted with the responsibility of development, maintenance
and management of National Highways and matters incidental
thereto. It is also stated, the present project forms part of
Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor undertaken under Bharatmata
Pariyojana Phase-1, which has been approved by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways NHAI in the larger national
interest, for promoting regional development and improving
inter-State connectivity, and that Khammam-Vijayawada
section of NH-163G is an integral part of the said corridor.
2.1. Respondents state that due care and diligence was
exercised while finalizing the alignment which was determined
after reconnaissance surveys, technical evaluation and detailed
deliberations, ensuring that alignment avoids existing
habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures
to the extent feasible, and that the alignment so finalized was
approved by the competent authority. In a meeting held on
03.01.2019, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (RT&H),
New Delhi, the alignment options proposed by the DPR
Consultant for Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor were deliberated,
and Option-I, being the present alignment bypassing hills and
forest areas, was approved, and thereafter the Land Acquisition
Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting dated
20.08.2020, accorded approval for the present alignment of
Mancherial-Vijayawada Corridor with a Right of Way of 45
meters.
2.2. Respondents also submit that earlier notifications
issued under Section 3A of the 1956 Act lapsed due to various
reasons, and therefore a fresh notification bearing No. S.O.
4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 was issued covering an extent of
82.79 hectares, duly providing brief particulars of the land as
required under Section 3A(2) of the Act. The format adopted for
publication of notifications under Section 3A is standardized
and uniformly followed across the country for all projects, and
that detailed particulars including names of landowners and
exact extents of land are provided at the stage of notification
under Section 3D.
2.3. At the stage of Section 3A notification, only
preliminary assessment based on available revenue maps is
undertaken without entering into the land, and that after
publication of the said notification, the authority is empowered
under Section 3B to enter upon the land for survey, and only
after completion of Joint Measurement Survey with revenue
authorities, detailed survey number-wise particulars and names
of landowners are ascertained. It is stated, after completion of
Joint Measurement Survey, Notification No. S.O. 3928(E) dated
04.09.2023 was issued under Section 3D of the Act, providing
complete details of affected farmers and extent of land required
for the project.
2.4. Respondents also state that the allegation regarding
improper segmentation is incorrect, and division of the project
into stretches or packages is only for the convenience of
construction, tendering and implementation, whereas the
Environmental Clearance as well as notifications under Sections
3A and 3D have been issued for larger stretches such as
Warangal-Khammam and Khammam-Vijayawada, and not in
the fragmented manner alleged by the Petitioners. It is also
stated, notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D were also
made available in the public domain, including on the Bhoomi
Rashi Portal and the Government of India e-Gazette website,
thereby ensuring transparency and public access. The proposed
alignment does not obstruct or interfere with the proposed
Khammam Ring Road of the State Government and does not
create any impediment to the same.
2.5. Though the District Collector, Khammam, vide
letter No. Rc.No. G1/2771/2018 dated 17.05.2022, requested
change of alignment, the said request was duly considered and
a reply was issued by Respondent No.4 vide letter No. NHAI/RO-
HYD/11025/NH-163G/Man-Vij/2022/764 dated 13.06.2022,
clearly stating that change of alignment at that stage was not
feasible in view of the status of land acquisition, environmental
clearance and other factors involved in execution of the project.
Respondents further state that the State Government itself, vide
letter dated 01.02.2024, conveyed its concurrence for the
original alignment finalized by NHAI, pursuant to which a fresh
notification dated 26.02.2024 was issued. With regard to
environmental aspects, all procedures prescribed under the EIA
Notification, 2006 have been strictly followed, and that requisite
documents and reports were submitted to the competent
authority. It is also stated, the Terms of Reference for the
project were approved by the Ministry vide letter dated
16.08.2021.
2.6. Respondents further state that, in compliance with
the approved Terms of Reference, public hearings were
conducted after due notice in newspapers and in the respective
villages, namely at Raghunadhapalem village in Khammam
District and Ayyagaripalle village in Mahabubabad District,
under the supervision of the Additional District Collectors and
Additional District Magistrates of the respective districts, in the
presence of Environmental Engineers. The environmental
concerns raised by the public during such hearings were duly
considered and addressed, and thereafter, the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted
Environmental Clearance on 16.02.2023 bearing identification
No. EC23A034TG157248 for the development of a 4-lane
access-controlled Greenfield Highway from Warangal to
Khammam covering a length of 108.240 km.
2.7. The Environmental Clearance was duly published
in newspapers, namely "The Hindu" and "Mana Telangana" on
18.02.2023, and was also communicated to all the Tahsildar
offices of the mandals concerned vide letter dated 23.02.2023
with instructions to display the same on notice boards for
public access. The District Collector, Khammam by letter dated
02.10.2022 addressed to the Member Secretary, MoEF&CC,
Government of India, has also stated that there would be no
major impact on forest and environment in Khammam District
due to the project.
2.8. Respondents also state that project has been
treated as Category 'A' for the purpose of Environmental
Clearance, therefore, the contention of Petitioners that it was
wrongly treated as Category "B" is factually incorrect and liable
to be rejected. The Environmental Clearance has been obtained
for the entire Warangal-Khammam stretch, and that
segmentation into three packages was only for the purpose of
competitive bidding and ease of execution, and not to
circumvent any statutory requirement.
2.9. Respondents further submit that 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 will be paid to affected landowners in
accordance with law. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be
dismissed, and the interim order of status quo granted on
30.07.2024 deserves to be vacated to enable Respondents to
proceed with land acquisition and implementation of the
project.
3. Heard Sri V. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for
petitioners, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor
General, Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel
for NHAI.
4. The challenge in the present writ petition is directed
against the Gazette (Extraordinary) Notification No. S.O. 4407(E)
dated 21.09.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 and the consequential Notification No. S.O.
3928 dated 04.09.2023 issued under Section 3D(1) of the said
Act, in respect of acquisition of land for the purpose of
formation of NH-163G Greenfield Highway in the stretch from
Km 203.8 to Km 220.48.
5. At the outset, it is to be noted that the 1956 Act is
a self-contained code providing a comprehensive statutory
mechanism governing acquisition of land for national highway
projects. The scheme of the Act contemplates issuance of a
preliminary notification under Section 3A(1), inviting objections
from interested persons, consideration of such objections under
Section 3C by the competent authority, followed by a
declaration under Section 3D(1) upon satisfaction of the
requirements of the Act. Section 3C of the Act confers a specific
statutory right upon any person interested in the land to raise
objections to the use of such land for the purpose specified in
the notification issued under Section 3A(1) and casts a
corresponding duty upon the competent authority to give an
opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order dealing with
such objections.
6. In the present case, petitioners raised a multitude
of contentions touching upon various aspects including, inter
alia, the selection of alignment, feasibility of alternative routes,
cost implications of land acquisition, alleged non-compliance
with the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition,
environmental impact and compliance with Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines, adequacy of particulars in the
notifications issued under Section 3A(1), alleged lack of public
consultation, and purported mala fides in the decision-making
process. These contentions, by their very nature, involve
detailed examination of factual aspects, technical
considerations, policy choices and expert assessments,
including comparative evaluation of alternative alignments,
environmental consequences, engineering feasibility, and
economic viability.
7. On the other hand, Respondents have placed on
record that the alignment was finalized after due deliberations
at multiple levels, including the meeting held on 03.01.2019
under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (RT&H) and approval
by the Land Acquisition Committee of NHAI on 20.08.2020, and
that the notifications under Sections 3A(1) and 3D(1) have been
issued in accordance with the statutory scheme. They further
asserted that environmental clearance for the project was
obtained after following due procedure prescribed under the EIA
Notification, 2006, including approval of Terms of Reference,
conduct of public hearings and consideration of environmental
concerns by the competent authority.
8. In this context, this Court finds that the issues
raised by the Petitioners, particularly those relating to adequacy
of particulars in the Section 3A notification, objections to
alignment, alleged procedural irregularities, environmental
concerns and non-compliance with guidelines, fall squarely
within the scope of objections contemplated under Section 3C of
the National Highways Act, 1956.
9. The statutory mechanism under Section 3C is
specifically designed to address such grievances by providing an
opportunity to affected persons to place their objections before
the competent authority, which is vested with the jurisdiction to
examine such objections and take an informed decision in
accordance with law. It is well settled that when a statute
provides an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly one
involving adjudication of factual disputes and technical matters
by a competent authority, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226
ought not to be invoked as a matter of course.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held
that writ courts should refrain from entertaining petitions
involving disputed questions of fact or matters requiring
technical expertise, especially when an adequate statutory
remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances such as
patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or
manifest arbitrariness are demonstrated.
11. In the case on hand, although allegations of mala
fides and violation of statutory provisions have been made, the
same are intertwined with disputed factual issues requiring
detailed examination of records, technical data and expert
inputs, which cannot be effectively adjudicated in summary
proceedings under Article 226. This Court is of the considered
view that determination of issues such as suitability of
alignment, comparative merits of alternative routes, compliance
with technical guidelines, environmental impact and adequacy
of surveys necessarily require evaluation by specialized
authorities equipped with requisite expertise and access to
primary data.
12. Further, the question as to whether the particulars
furnished in the notification under Section 3A(1) satisfy the
requirement of Section 3A(2), and whether adequate opportunity
has been afforded to the affected persons, are matters which
can be effectively urged before the competent authority in
proceedings under Section 30. It is also relevant to note that the
statutory scheme does not render petitioners remediless, but
rather provides a specific forum and procedure for ventilating
their grievances, including the right to be heard and to place all
the relevant material before the authority. In such
circumstances, entertaining the present Writ Petition, at this
stage, would amount to bypassing the statutory mechanism and
prematurely invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court, which is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
13. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that
petitioners ought to have availed the alternative statutory
remedy available under Section 3C of the 1956 Act, by
submitting their objections before the competent authority and
raising all contentions, including those urged in the present
Writ Petition. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
finds no ground to entertain the writ petition at this stage in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
14. 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 as urged in the present writ petition. It is made
clear that if such objections are filed, the competent authority
shall consider the same independently, objectively and in
accordance with law without being influenced by any
observations made in this order and shall afford due
opportunity of hearing to petitioners. No costs.
15. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
