Telangana High Court
Korlapati Rama Rao 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. 20359 OF 2023
07.04.2026
Between:
Korlapati Rama Rao
..... Petitioner
And
The Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners contend that the 1st Petitioner is owner of landed property admeasuring Acs. 2.05 in Sy. No. 251/AA3, situated a few yards away from the 100 Ft. Wyra Road and the 2nd Petitioner is owner of 1600 Sq. Yards in Sy. Nos. 253 AA and 254A of V. Venkatayapalem Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana, near the Khammam District Offices Complex and abutting the 100 Ft. Wyra Road, which lands are covered under the impugned notification, thereby conferring upon them the requisite right, title and interest to question the same.
21.1. It is contended that Respondents issued the impugned Notification dated 29.07.2022 under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), inviting objections for acquisition of lands in V. Venkatayapalem Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana State, for laying the proposed Green Field Highway from Khammam to Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh State, without furnishing particulars of the lands sought to be acquired and the names of their owners, thereby acting in blatant violation of Section 3A(2) and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, thereby prejudicing and defrauding the land losers. 1.2. The District Collector, Khammam addressed letter dated 17.05.2022 to NHAI through the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, clearly demonstrating that the Respondents have failed to adhere to the governmental guidelines relating to maintaining appropriate distance from human habitations and work places while finalizing the alignment. It is also contended, as per Respondents themselves, three alternative alignments were considered, namely i) the present alignment comprised in the impugned notification, (ii) an alignment to the left of the present alignment, and (iii) an 3 alignment to the extreme left of the present alignment, and that the present alignment has been chosen despite being the nearest and adjacent to Khammam city, thereby adversely affecting the public at large, including local residents, representatives and officials.
1.3. Petitioners contended that the impugned notification is illegal as it is in derogation of Section 3A(2) of the said Act, which mandates that the notification must contain a brief description of the lands proposed to be acquired, which requirement has not been complied with. The impugned notification is irregular and contrary to Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Planning Zone), dated 26.02.2018, particularly Para 8(ii), which stipulates that highway alignment should be planned at a reasonable distance from human habitations, which guideline has been violated. The impugned notification is in derogation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Highways issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, particularly with respect to air pollution mitigation measures as provided under Para 5.2, first point relating to mitigating measures. 4 1.4. Petitioners further contend that the impugned notification is also in violation of the said Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual with regard to mitigation of sound pollution as provided under Para 5.4, first point relating to mitigating measures. The impugned notification is contrary to the guidelines issued on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956, which have not been followed in the present case. It is further contended, Respondents ought to have rectified the shortcomings in the impugned notification at least after receipt of the representation of the District Collector, Khammam dated 17.05.2022, wherein in the second paragraph it was specifically stated that the alignment was finalized without obtaining consent from the R&B Department and the Municipality of Khammam, which clearly indicates that the alignment was decided even without the knowledge of the State Revenue Department. 1.5. The issue could have been effectively resolved by constructing a bypass road near Khammam city and that it is unjust on the part of Respondents not to provide a bypass road for Khammam city, which is a Municipal Corporation, while such bypass roads are provided even for smaller villages along highways, and that by adopting such a course, Respondents 5 could have, with minimal expenditure, prevented air and sound pollution affecting thousands of families and safeguarded valuable commercial house sites. Petitioners also contend that even from the perspective of Respondents, substantial cost savings in land acquisition could have been achieved if the bypass road had been constructed at a reasonable distance from Khammam city.
1.6. The impugned notification was issued without wide publicity and without eliciting the opinion of the public, public representatives, local bodies, and governmental departments such as Revenue, Municipality, Gram Panchayats and R&B Department, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Respondents have acted in haste and in a clandestine manner, as evidenced by the publication of the notification in Hans India (English newspaper) and Mana Telangana (Telugu newspaper), which are not widely circulated or known in the concerned area, and that adequate publicity has not been given. Even assuming Environmental Clearance was obtained, the Respondents failed to give wide publicity to the same and have not disclosed any such publication to date.
1.7. Petitioners also contend that Respondents are resorting to forceful survey of lands with the assistance of police 6 without completing the mandatory formalities under the 1956 Act, Forest and Environmental Laws, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Petitioners further contended that provisions of the 1956 Act do not exempt Respondents from adherence to the principles of natural justice and that while the Petitioners are not opposed to development, they are entitled to insist that the Respondents act strictly in accordance with law.
2. Respondents 3 to 5 filed counter stating that National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is a Central Government Agency constituted by an Act of Parliament and is entrusted with the responsibility of development, maintenance and management of National Highways and matters connected therewith. It is contended, keeping in view the national and larger public interest, regional development and improvement of inter-State connectivity, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H)/NHAI has accorded approval for taking up the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under Bharatmata Pariyojana Phase-1 and that the Khammam-Vijayawada section of NH- 163G forms part of the said corridor.
72.1. Respondents further contend that due care has been taken while finalizing the alignment by considering optimal and feasible alignment options in light of prevailing developments and that care was taken to avoid existing habitats, settlements, water bodies and religious structures, and that after reconnaissance survey and detailed deliberations, the present alignment was approved by the competent authority. It is also contended, pursuant thereto, NHAI issued Gazette Notification dated 29.07.2022 under Section 3A for construction of NH-163G from Km 220.48 to Km 265.695 in Khammam District, and that the said notification contains details such as survey numbers, nature and type of land and extent of land proposed for acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the 1956 Act and the applicable guidelines, and that Survey Nos. 253 and 254 are included therein. 2.2. Respondents further contend that it is true that the District Collector, Khammam requested change of alignment, however, the same was examined and a reply was issued vide letter No. NHAI/RO-HYD/11025/NH-163G/Man-Viy/2022/764 dated 13.06.2022 stating that change in alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the status of land acquisition, environmental clearance and other issues involved in the 8 project. Subsequently, upon careful review and considering the constraints expressed by NHAI, the State Government conveyed its concurrence for the original alignment finalized by NHAI vide letter No. 2689/R1(2)/2019 dated 01.02.2024. 2.3. It is also contended, all due procedures have been followed in accordance with EIA Notification, 2006 and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted Environmental Clearance for the project titled "Development of 4-Lane Access Controlled new Greenfield Highway section of Khammam to Vijayawada of length 89.429 Km from V. Venkatayapalen village to Jakkampudi Village (on NH-16), Design Chainage 220.480 to 309.909 under other Economic Corridor (NH(O)) programme in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh" vide EC Identification dated 23.01.2023. It is also contended, the Terms of Reference for the said proposal were approved by the Ministry vide letter No. F.No. 10/30/2021-1A.III dated 26.07.2021.
2.4. Respondents further contend that, in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and after following due procedure, public hearings were conducted in the project areas in Khammam District of Telangana State and Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh, presided over by the respective Additional 9 District Collectors and Additional District Magistrate in the presence of Environmental Engineers, and that the issues raised by the public were duly considered and incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan. The details of the Environmental Clearance and related matters were published in "The Hindu" and "Andhra Jyothi" newspapers on 23.01.2023 and were also displayed on the notice boards of the concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30 days. The land acquisition for the project is being undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1956 Act read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and compensation for land and associated properties will be paid in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 2013. Respondents also contend that pursuant to the concurrence of the State Government vide letter dated 01.02.2024, a fresh notification under Section 3A has been issued vide S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024.
3. Petitioners filed reply contending that counter affidavit filed by the Respondents is incomplete and irregular, inasmuch as it does not deal with several paragraphs and issues raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition 10 and fails to furnish proper and specific replies. Respondents have not taken due care to avoid human habitations, as the impugned alignment passes through 625 house sites of 70 square yards each allotted to landless poor persons by the Government, as evidenced by Ex. P-1, and that approximately 400 such house sites are directly affected, while the remaining are likely to be adversely impacted by pollution arising from the highway passing adjacent to their residences. Petitioners also contended that due care was not exercised while fixing the alignment near the Khammam District Collector's Office at V. Venkatayapalem, which is a work place and a noise-sensitive zone housing several revenue courts, and that the impugned alignment passes only a few feet away from the said office. 3.1. The District Collector, Khammam addressed letter dated 17.05.2022 to NHAI through the Chief Secretary of Telangana State stating that alignment was finalized without consulting local authorities and required shifting, and the Member of Parliament, Khammam also addressed a letter dated 11.11.2022 to the Union Transport Minister seeking shifting of the alignment by at least 5 Km in view of local governmental plans, which representations have been ignored. The impugned alignment is in close proximity to several sensitive locations, 11 namely, the new Government Medical College situated about 120 feet away, another colony of about 500 house sites located approximately 420 feet away, V. Venkatayapalem Gram Panchayat with a population of about 5000 located about 300 meters away, the new Khammam District Offices Complex located about 200 feet away, and the Khammam Municipal Corporation limits situated within less than one kilometer on the western side.
3.2. Petitioners further contended that due to the establishment of the new Collectorate and declaration of a ring road by the State Government, several thousands of house sites have been formed in the area through which the impugned alignment is passing, and that Khammam town has expanded by at least 5 Km beyond the impugned alignment, thereby demonstrating that the alignment passes through developed and developing areas comprising human habitations, commercial house sites, educational institutions and important work places, contrary to the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways.
3.3. Petitioners also contend, with reference to Ex. P-3, that the impugned alignment passes near Khanapuram Haveli 12 at a distance of about 400 feet, and as per Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, the alignment ought to have been altered or bypass roads constructed to avoid human habitations and noise-sensitive areas. With reference to Ex. P-4, that the alignment of the highway from Warangal to Jakkampudi is curved and semi-circular in nature, which is contrary to Circular No. NH-15017/21/2018-P&M issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956.
3.4. Notifications under Section 3A(1) of the Act have been issued from 2019 onwards even without conducting survey, public consultations and without applying for Environmental Clearance Certificate, as is evident from the Environmental Clearance documents filed along with the affidavit. Petitioners, it is stated, had filed a detailed affidavit placing reliance upon the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956, which have not been properly addressed by the Respondents. Petitioners also contend that the averments in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit are self-contradictory and are 13 liable to be rejected, inasmuch as the impugned project is stated to be of 45 meters width, whereas the prescribed norm for a Greenfield Highway is a minimum of 60 meters and for Express Highways is 90 meters, as per the applicable guidelines. 3.5. Petitioners also contend that while Respondents state that the Land Acquisition Committee approved the alignment on 20.08.2020, notifications under Section 3A(1) were issued from 2019 onwards, and that Environmental Public Hearing was conducted on 15.03.2022, and Environmental Clearance bearing No. EC23A034TG132431 was issued on 23.01.2023, and Terms of Reference were approved vide letter dated 26.07.2021, and that in a letter dated 08.02.2024 the 5th Respondent stated that the alignment was approved on 03.01.2019, which sequence of dates is contradictory and inconsistent 3.6. It is also contended, the statement in the letter dated 08.02.2024 that the alignment was finalized after deliberations with the Chairman, NHAI and the State Government is a belated justification and that the Respondents ought to have undertaken such consultations with the State Government, local revenue authorities. municipal authorities and local bodies, and obtained Environmental Clearance prior 14 to issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act. Although the previous State Government sought change of alignment through the District Collector's letter dated 17.05.2022, the present support for the alignment by the State Government is merely a change of opinion and does not alter the factual and legal position, and that there are political interests involved in finalizing the impugned alignment, which renders the action ex facie mala fide. The affected land owners have been under uncertainty and threat of losing their lands for nearly six years since 2019, resulting in irreparable loss and mental agony.
3.7. Petitioners further contended that the DPR consultant, namely M/s. Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., submitted its report in November 2021 stating that the baseline study was conducted between April and June 2021, which contradicts the claim that alignment and land acquisition proposals were finalized on 03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020, thereby rendering the process arbitrary. Although three alternative alignments were considered in the DPR, namely Option-1, Option-2 and Option-3, Option-1 has been selected on the ground of lesser tree felling and cost, which according to the 15 Petitioners indicates that the report is tailored and that the chronology of events is inconsistent.
3.8. Petitioners further contend that the highway could have been aligned from Warangal towards Amaravathi on the western side of Khammam without crossing Munneru river at huge cost, instead of routing it towards the eastern side. The stand of Respondents that Notifications under Section 3A(1) are issued without furnishing land particulars is legally untenable, as Section 3A(2) specifically mandates providing brief particulars of the land to be acquired, and failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. The concurrence of the State Government vide letter dated 01.02.2024 is only a subsequent development and cannot cure the earlier illegality, and that the rejection of the District Collector's request for change of alignment vide letter dated 13.06.2022 was arbitrary and biased, especially when no substantial steps such as obtaining Environmental Clearance had been completed at that time.
3.9. Petitioners also contend that Respondents have acted illegally in segmenting the project, treating Warangal to Khammam and Khammam to Vijayawada as separate sections for Environmental Clearance, while dividing the stretch into 16 portions of less than 30 Km for notification purposes, namely 29.92 Km from Tirdhala to V. Venkatayapalem and 16.66 Km from V. Venkatayapalem to Kodumur, both falling within the jurisdiction of R.D.O., Khammam. Environmental Clearance for Warangal to Khammam section was obtained on 16.02.2023 bearing EC Identification No. EC23A034TG157248 and for Khammam to Vijayawada section on 23.01.2023 bearing EC Identification No. EC23A034TG132431, which demonstrates that the expression "at this juncture" used in the Respondents' letter dated 13.06.2022 is incorrect.
3.10. The correspondence clearly establishes that State Government departments and local bodies were not consulted prior to finalization of alignment near Khammam town, which constitutes a serious procedural lapse. Respondents had issued a fresh notification under Section 3A(1) dated 26.02.2024 covering the same stretch from V. Venkatayapalem to Kodumur measuring 16.66 Km and including some of Petitioners, which is illegal and renders earlier notifications irregular. As per the guidelines, the entire stretch under one Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) ought to be notified as a single unit and that segmentation is impermissible. Issuance of multiple notifications from 2019 to 2024 without completing the 17 statutory process and public consultation renders the entire acquisition process arbitrary and illegal.
4. Heard Sri Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Union of India and Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 3 to 5.
5. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Notification dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 3A(1), whereby objections were invited for acquisition of lands in V. Venkatayapalem Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana State, for the purpose of formation of a Greenfield Highway from Khammam to Vijayawada. The principal contention urged by Petitioners is that the impugned notification is vitiated on account of non- compliance with Section 3A(2), inasmuch as it does not contain brief particulars of the lands sought to be acquired, and that the same is also in violation of various guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, particularly with regard to alignment planning. environmental safeguards and public participation. 18
6. It is further the contention of Petitioners that alignment has been finalized in close proximity to human habitations, public institutions and developed areas, without due consultation with local authorities and stakeholders, and in disregard of representations made by the District Collector, Khammam dated 17.05.2022 and by the Member of Parliament dated 11.11 2022, and that alternative alignments, including a bypass around Khanımam city, have not been duly considered.
7. Per contra, Respondents contend that the project forms part of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under Bharatmata Pariyojana Phase-I, undertaken in larger public interest, and that the alignment has been finalized after due reconnaissance survey and deliberations by the competent authority, taking into consideration feasibility and prevailing conditions. It is further asserted that the impugned notification dated 29.07.2022 contains all requisite particulars as contemplated under the 1956 Act and that Environmental Clearance was granted on 23.01.2023 bearing Identification No. EC23A034TG132431, Terms of Reference were approved on 26.07.2021, and public hearings have been duly conducted in the project areas, with issues raised being incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan.
19
8. It is also the stand of Respondents that the request of the District Collector, Khammam for change of alignment was duly considered and rejected vide letter dated 13.06.2022 on account of practical constraints, and that the State Government has subsequently conveyed its concurrence for the finalized alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, and that the land acquisition process is being carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
9. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, this Court finds that the issues raised by Petitioners substantially relate to the correctness and suitability of the alignment, the alleged proximity to human habitations and public institutions, the adequacy of environmental safeguards, the compliance with various executive guidelines and manuals, and the sequence and manner in which procedural steps such as issuance of notification, environmental clearance and public hearings have been undertaken. The aforesaid issues, by their very nature, involve adjudication of disputed and complex questions of fact, which would require detailed examination of technical data, 20 survey reports, environmental impact assessments, alignment studies, feasibility reports and administrative records maintained by expert bodies.
10. This Court is of the considered view that the determination of such issues, particularly those relating to highway alignment, environmental impact, and feasibility considerations, falls squarely within the domain of expert authorities constituted under the relevant statutes and policies, and such matters are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except on limited grounds such as patent illegality, lack of jurisdiction or violation of statutory provisions.
11. In the present case, this Court does not find that Petitioners have made out a case of such nature warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly at the stage of issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act. It is also pertinent to note that the National Highways Act, 1956 provides a complete and self-contained statutory mechanism governing acquisition of land for national highways, including the issuance of notification under Section 3A, consideration of objections, declaration under Section 3D and determination of compensation. The scheme of the Act 21 specifically contemplates that any person interested in the land may raise objections to the notification under Section 3A, and such objections are required to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
12. Thus, an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available to the Petitioners under the statutory framework to raise all objections, including those relating to alignment, extent of acquisition, environmental concerns and compliance with guidelines, before the competent authority. Further, the material on record indicates that Environmental Clearance has been granted on 23.01.2023 and that public hearings have been conducted as per the prescribed procedure, which are matters falling within the purview of expert statutory authorities, and any grievance in that regard is also required to be agitated before appropriate forums in accordance with law.
13. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that entertaining the present writ petition at this stage would amount to bypassing the statutory mechanism and substituting the judicial opinion in place of expert determination, which is impermissible in law.
14. It is a settled principle that when a statute provides a complete machinery for redressal of grievances, the High 22 Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily refrains from interfering, particularly in matters involving disputed questions of fact and technical considerations. In the considered view of this Court, the present writ petition falls within the category of cases where the Petitioners ought to be relegated to avail the remedies available under the statute.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to Petitioners to avail the remedies available under law and to raise all the contentions urged in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority, which shall consider the same in accordance with law. No costs.
16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 07th April, 2026 ksld