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.
21.1. 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.
132.5. 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 14 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 15 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. 16
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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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.
213.8. 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 22 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.
233.11. 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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.
28
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 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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.
34
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