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 2 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 3 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 4 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. 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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, 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.
152.5. 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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, 20 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.
21
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 22 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 23 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. 24
15. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 07th April 2026 ksld