Telangana High Court
Kuthumbaka Naresh 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. 9109 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Kuthumbaka Naresh & others
..... Petitioners
And
The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners contend that the Union Government has proposed a Greenfield Highway project from Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra to Amaravathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2019 and the said Highway, while proceeding towards Vijayawada, is proposed to pass through Khammam Municipal Corporation area, including V. Venkatayapalem village and adjoining regions. Though respondents claim to have considered three alternative alignments, the impugned alignment, namely Option-1, which is closest to Khammam city, has been selected arbitrarily, despite the existence of alternative alignments to the East and extreme East, and the selected alignment intersects the 100 feet Wyra Road, which is a major State Highway and a principal road within Khammam city, passing through highly 2 commercial areas, Government offices and educational institutions. The successive Gazette Notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021, S.O. 3563(E) dated 29.07.2022 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024, were issued without complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the brief particulars of lands to be acquired, their extent and ownership details were not furnished, thereby rendering the notifications illegal and depriving the land losers of their right to raise effective objections.
1.1. Petitioners further contend that the impugned notification is the third in succession and that repeated issuance of such notifications, without curing defects and without adhering to statutory requirements, is impermissible in law, particularly when earlier notifications have lapsed by efflux of time. The land-losers in and around Khammam have been agitating against the impugned alignment, and the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, had categorically requested for change of alignment, pointing out various factual and developmental aspects on ground. The State Government had already planned a ring road 3 for Khammam city pursuant to G.O. Rt. No. 182 dated 18.04.2016 issued by the Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, and had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 208 Crores for land acquisition, and accordingly had acquired land in 2018 by paying compensation of Rs. 1 crore per acre for construction of the Integrated District Collectorate.
1.2. Petitioners also contend that due to such developments, the lands surrounding the Collectorate have become highly commercial, and several residential colonies, schools and colleges have come up within a 10 Km stretch of the Khammam ring road, and despite such significant developments, the respondents have fixed the impugned alignment without knowledge or consultation with Khammam Municipal Corporation, Roads and Buildings Department, Gram Panchayats and other local bodies. The District Collector had also brought to the notice of the respondents that the cost of land acquisition under the impugned alignment would be substantially higher in view of the development and compensation already paid at Rs. 1 crore per acre, yet the said representation was rejected by the respondents without assigning cogent or detailed reasons.
1.3. Petitioners also contend that respondents have deliberately withheld the names of land owners and particulars 4 of land in the notification, with an intention to conceal the identity of influential persons whose lands are being benefited, while small land owners are adversely affected, thereby acting in a manner lacking transparency and fairness. In the absence of necessary particulars as mandated under Section 3A(2), the affected land owners are left without any meaningful opportunity to raise objections, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the entire process arbitrary. Petitioners also contend that respondents indulged in disinformation and misinformation, and have proceeded in haste and secrecy to benefit certain influential persons, disregarding the safety of human life and the property rights of small land owners. The reply furnished by the 5th Respondent under the Right to Information Act vide letter dated 08.02.2024 reveals that the alignment was proposed on 03.01.2019 and approved by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, yet all stakeholders including land losers, local authorities and the general public were kept in the dark until issuance of notification under Section 3A(1), which is contrary to statutory requirements and established guidelines mandating prior consultation.
1.4. Petitioners also contend that the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Highways issued by 5 the Ministry of Environment and Forests mandates that road alignment should avoid passing close to housing, schools and hospitals in order to mitigate air pollution, and the impugned alignment is in direct violation of such guidelines. The impugned alignment passes within 500 meters of the District Collectorate, where approximately 1500 employees work and an equal number of public visit daily, and also near Harvest Public School accommodating approximately 3000 students, and V. Venkatayapalem Gram Panchayat with a population of about 6000, thereby exposing large populations to severe air pollution hazards.
1.5. Petitioners also contend that Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual further prescribes development of bypass roads to avoid alignment through noise sensitive areas, and the impugned alignment, instead of providing a bypass, passes through such sensitive zones including courts functioning within the Collectorate, thereby violating prescribed norms relating to noise pollution. The only viable solution in such circumstances would be construction of a bypass road, which the respondents have failed to consider, thereby acting in disregard of environmental safeguards. Petitioners also contend that the respondents have completely deviated from the requirement of pre-application public consultation as mandated 6 under the Environmental Impact Assessment framework, and have instead conducted selective and limited interactions with a few individuals without proper public participation. 1.6. Petitioners further contend that despite continuous agitations by affected land owners and social organizations for nearly two years, the respondents have ignored such objections and proceeded in a prejudiced manner. The post-environmental clearance requirements including wide publicity of Environmental Clearance Certificates as mandated for Category "A" projects, have not been complied with, and no advertisements or public disclosures have been made, indicating clandestine conduct on the part of the respondents. It is contended, Notification dated 26.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways mandates that Greenfield Highway alignments should follow a crow-flight route with minimal deviation and should avoid proximity to human habitations, which has been completely ignored in the present case.
1.7. Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment passes through V Venkatayapalem village, District Collectorate, educational institutions and Khammam Municipal Corporation area, and was fixed without consultation with local authorities or stakeholders, contrary to prescribed guidelines. 7 The report of the DPR Consultant, namely ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., recommending Option-1 is cryptic, lacks detailed reasoning, and does not provide comparative data between alternative options, thereby rendering the selection arbitrary and perfunctory. The consultant has merely referred to "some" or "more" felling of trees without providing quantitative or qualitative analysis, and has failed to provide comparable data for alternative routes, thereby vitiating the decision-making process. The alternative alignment, namely Option-2, is straighter, connects Suryapet to Vijayawada National Highway at Kodad, and is approximately 100 km. shorter, thereby saving substantial public expenditure, yet the respondents have arbitrarily selected the longer and curved Option-1, which also crosses river Muneru twice.
1.8. Petitioners also contend that such selection of alignment is actuated by vested interests to benefit certain persons in power. The reply dated 26.10.2021 furnished under the Right to Information Act is cryptic and evasive, as it does not disclose the relevant High Court order or details thereof, thereby indicating deliberate suppression of information. Respondents are bound to follow all statutory provisions, rules, regulations and guidelines, and cannot claim immunity on the ground of expertise in determining highway alignments. The 8 impugned notification is illegal for violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act, irregular for violation of the Notification dated 26.02.2018, and contrary to Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines relating to air pollution, noise pollution and public consultation. Respondents have unjustifiably ignored the recommendations of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022, and have failed to provide a bypass road for Khammam city, despite providing such bypasses for smaller villages. It is contended, respondents ought not to have selected Option-1, which is closest to human habitations and institutions, and ought to have selected Option-III or other alternatives to minimize impact and reduce acquisition costs. 1.9. Petitioners also contend that respondents have acted in haste and secrecy by publishing notifications in lesser- known newspapers such as Hans India and Mana Telangana, thereby limiting public awareness. The repeated issuance of Section 3A(1) notifications after lapse of earlier notifications is impermissible, and defeats the purpose of statutory time limits, which are intended to prevent prolonged uncertainty and to ensure consideration of ground realities. Due to such repeated notifications and prolonged process since January 2019, the land owners have been subjected to severe hardship, uncertainty and mental agony for nearly five years. Petitioners 9 therefore, contend that the impugned notification is liable to be quashed and appropriate directions be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding further, and that interim suspension of the notification dated 26.02.2024 is warranted pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.
2. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the allegations made by Petitioners that the impugned Notification is in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual for Highways are incorrect and denied, and submits that the impugned project has been processed strictly in accordance with the statutory framework governing environmental protection. Under clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central Government is empowered to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act, and in exercise of such powers, the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification was initially issued vide S.O. 60(E) dated 27.01.1994, mandating prior environmental clearance for specified categories of projects listed in Schedule-I. The said EIA Notification, 1994 was subsequently amended on 07.07.2004 making Environmental Impact Assessment a statutory requirement for certain construction and development activities, and thereafter, a comprehensive Notification bearing S.O. 1533(E) dated 10 14.09.2006 was issued, commonly referred to as the EIA Notification, 2006, in supersession of the earlier notification. 2.1. Respondent No.2 further contends that as per the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, all new projects or activities listed in the Schedule, including expansion or modernization of existing projects crossing threshold limits, are required to obtain prior Environmental Clearance either from the Central Government or the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), as applicable. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central Government has constituted SEIAA in the States for the purpose of granting environmental clearances in accordance with the procedure laid down under the EIA Notification, 2006. The Schedule to EIA Notification, 2006 specifically includes highways under Entry 7(f), which mandates prior Environmental Clearance for new National Highways and expansion projects involving specified thresholds, thereby bringing the present project within the ambit of mandatory environmental clearance.
2.2. The subject stretch from Km 220.48 to Km 250.400 forms part of a larger project, namely construction of a four-lane access controlled Greenfield Highway section of Khammam- Vijayawada of length 89.429 Km from V. Venkatayapalem village 11 to Jakkampudi village (Design Chainage 220+480 to 309-909) under the Other Economic Corridor in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. In respect of the said project, an on line application bearing proposal number IA/TG/NCP/215098/2021 dated 16.06.2021 was submitted by the Project Proponent, namely the National Highways Authority of India, seeking Environmental Clearance. Upon receipt of the said application, the proposal was placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) in its meeting held on 12.07.2021, and thereafter, Terms of Reference (ToR) were granted vide letter dated 26.07.2021 for preparation of the EIA/EMP Report and for conducting public hearing in consultation with the State Government. 2.3. Respondent No.2 further contends that pursuant to the grant of Terms of Reference, the Project Proponent carried out detailed Environmental Impact Assessment studies, including preparation of the final EIA Report, which contained details of the project, environmental baseline data, impact assessment, mitigation measures and analysis of alternatives. With regard to the allegation of Petitioners that selection of Option-I alignment is actuated by vested interests, it is stated the EIA Report contains a comparative analysis of three alternative alignments, and after detailed evaluation of all 12 relevant environmental and social parameters, Option-I was selected as the most feasible alignment.
2.4. Respondent No.2 further contends that the comparative study undertaken by the Project Proponent, along with maps and supporting data, demonstrated that Option-I would have lesser impact on environmental and social components as compared to the other alternatives, and the same was duly considered by the competent authority. After considering the EIA studies, recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee and compliance with procedural requirements under the EIA Notification, 2006, Environmental Clearance for the project was granted vide letter dated 23.01.2023, subject to project-specific and general conditions. 2.5. Grant of Environmental Clearance was preceded by a thorough evaluation of the project by the competent authority established under the EIA Notification, 2006, and was issued with a view to ensure environmental safeguards while facilitating infrastructural development. Respondent No.2's role is confined to assessment of projects from the perspective of environmental safeguards and grant or rejection of Environmental Clearance, and issue of land acquisition pursuant to the impugned Notification dated 26.02.2024 falls outside its jurisdiction and lies within the domain of the 13 concerned authorities under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the State Government.
3. Respondents 3 to 5 also filed counter contending that the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory body constituted under an Act of Parliament and is responsible for the development, maintenance and management of National Highways and matters connected therewith. The project in question forms part of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I, which has been undertaken keeping in view national interest, regional development and improvement of inter-State connectivity, and that the Khammam-Vijayawada section of NH-163G is an integral part of the said corridor. Due care has been taken while finalizing the alignment, considering optimal and feasible alignment options in view of prevailing developments, and efforts were made to avoid existing habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious. After conducting reconnaissance survey and detailed deliberations, the present alignment was approved by the competent authority. A meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Road Transport & Highways), New Delhi, wherein various alignment options for the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor as proposed by the DPR 14 Consultant were deliberated, and Option-I, being the present alignment bypassing hills and forest sections, was approved. 3.1. Respondents 3 to 5 further contend that the Land Acquisition Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting held on 20.08.2020, deliberated upon the matter and accorded approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial- Vijayawada Corridor with a Right of Way of 45 meters. The approved alignment does not obstruct or impede the proposed Khammam Ring Road and that the State Government is free to undertake the ring road project independently. Earlier notifications issued under Section 3A of the Act had lapsed due to various reasons, and therefore, a fresh notification bearing S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024 was issued covering an extent of 25.52 hectares including lands in V. Venkatayapalem, Vandanam and other villages, duly providing brief description of land in compliance with Section 3A(2) of the Act. They also contend that the format adopted for issuance of Section 3A notification is standardized across the country and is uniformly followed for all highway projects.
3.2. Respondents No. 3 to 5 further contend that detailed particulars of land including names of land owners are provided at the stage of Section 3D notification, and that at the stage of Section 3A notification, only preliminary details are 15 provided based on available records without entering upon the land. As per Section 3B of the Act, entry for survey is permissible only after issuance of Section 3A notification, and thereafter, joint measurement survey is conducted with revenue authorities to ascertain exact details of land and ownership. The District Collector, Khammam vide letter dated 17.05.2022, had requested for change of alignment and the same was duly considered and rejected by Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 13.06.2022, on the ground that change of alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the progress of land acquisition, environmental clearance and other project-related factors.
3.3. Respondents No.3 to 5 also contend that the State Government, after considering all aspects, has accorded concurrence to the proposed alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, which overrides the earlier proposal of the District Collector. The project has been processed in accordance with the ELA Notification, 2006 and Environmental Clearance has been granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide EC Identification dated 23.01.2023 for development of a four-lane access controlled Greenfield Highway from V. Venkatayapalem village to Jakkampudi village covering 16 a length of 89.429 Km. The Terms of Reference for the project were approved by the Ministry vide letter dated 26.07.2021. 3.4. Public hearings were conducted in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference in Khammam District of Telangana and Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh, presided over by the respective Additional District Collectors and Additional District Magistrates, in the presence of environmental engineers, and the issues raised by the public were duly addressed and incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan. The details of Environmental Clearance and public hearing were published in "The Hindu" and "Mana Telangana" newspapers on 23.01.2023 and were also displayed on notice boards of concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30 days. The Respondents No.3 to 5 further contend that the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the Member Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of India, had conveyed that there would be no major impact on forest and environment in Khammam District due to the project. 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 compensation will be paid to 17 affected land owners as per the said Act. It is also contended, the State Government has reiterated its concurrence to the alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, pursuant to which fresh Section 3A notification dated 26.02.2024 has been issued.
4. Petitioners filed reply contending that the present Writ Petition is part of a batch of seven Writ Petitions, out of which Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20359 of 2024 and 22802 of 2024 relate to a stretch of 29.92 Km from V. Venkatayapalem village to Brahmanapalli village forming part of the Khammam to Vijayawada section, situated on the southern side of the Khammam District Collector's office, and Writ Petitions No. 14632 of 2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024 relate to a stretch of 16.67 Km from Tirdhala village to V. Venkatayapalem Village forming part of the Warangal to Khammam section on the northern side, both falling under the jurisdiction of Khammam R.D.O., and separated by the 100 feet Wyra Road passing in front of the District Collector's office. 4.1. Petitioners also contend that both the aforesaid stretches are interlinked and any change of alignment or provision of bypass at V. Venkatayapalem near the District Collector's office would necessarily affect both stretches, and therefore both segments are required to be considered and resolved simultaneously. The claim of Respondents that due 18 care was taken to avoid human habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures is wholly false and contrary to ground realities. The impugned alignment passes through approximately 725 house sites of 70 square yards each allotted by the State Government to landless poor, out of which about 400 house sites are directly affected and the remaining are likely to be rendered uninhabitable due to severe pollution caused by the highway.
4.2. Petitioners further contend that the alignment passes within approximately 200 feet of the District Collector's office, which houses several revenue courts and is a noise sensitive zone, and that the said alignment was fixed without consulting local authorities despite the District Collector's letter dated 17.05.2022 recommending change. Khammam Member of Parliament had also addressed a letter dated 11.11.2022 to the Union Transport Minister requesting shifting of the alignment by at least 5 Km in view of local development plans. The impugned alignment passes in close proximity to a newly established Government Medical College situated about 120. feet away, another colony consisting of about 500 house sites situated about 420 feet away, and V. Venkatayapalem Gram Panchayat having a population of approximately 5000 located 19 about 300 meters away, and further that Khammam Municipal Corporation limits lie within less than one kilometre. 4.3. Due to the establishment of the District Collectorate and declaration of ring road, thousands of house sites have been formed and the town of Khammam has expanded by at least 5 Km beyond the impugned alignment, and that the alignment cuts through developed commercial and residential areas. Respondents have kept the land owners under continuous uncertainty for nearly six years since January 2019 by issuing successive notifications, thereby preventing development of the area and causing severe hardship. The impugned alignment passes through human habitations, educational institutions and important public offices in violation of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways. Petitioners further contend that the alignment passes within approximately 400 feet of Khanapuram Haveli village and that the applicable environmental guidelines mandate avoidance of such habitations or provision of bypass roads. The alignment from Warangal to Vijayawada is semi-circular and not in a crow- flight path, thereby violating the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways requiring straight alignment with minimal deviation from habitations. 20 4.4. Section 3A(1) notifications were issued as early as May, 2019 without conducting proper surveys, without public consultation and even without obtaining Environmental Clearance, thereby rendering the process illegal. The assertion of the Respondents that alignment was finalized after due deliberations is false and contrary to the chronology of events. There is contradiction in the Respondents stand inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Committee approval dated 20.08.2020 is subsequent to issuance of Section 3A notifications starting from 17.05.2019. The Environmental Clearance Certificate dated 23.01.2023 contains incorrect and misleading data, including incorrect statements that the area is predominantly agricultural and uninhabited and that wheat is a major crop, whereas in reality the entire Khammam Municipal Corporation area with a population of approximately 5 lakhs lies within 10 Km radius. Similar defects exist in the Environmental Clearance Certificate dated 16.02.2023 for Warangal to Khammam stretch, which also contains incorrect and generalized data and reflects non- application of mind. The DPR Consultant report of ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. is perfunctory, cryptic and inconsistent with the timeline of notifications, and appears to be a tailor-made report lacking proper analysis 21 4.5. Petitioners further contend that Respondents have acted in haste and in a clandestine manner by issuing Section 3A notifications prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance and without conducting mandatory consultations with State Government and local bodies. The assertion that the impugned alignment does not affect the Khammam ring road is incorrect, as the proposed highway is elevated approximately 15 feet above ground and would obstruct seamless development and connectivity, effectively dividing the town. Alignment would aggravate flooding conditions in Khammam, as it would act as a barrier to natural flow of water near Wyra Road and Collectorate, thereby causing waterlogging and marooning of surrounding areas. Repeated issuance of Section 3A notifications defeats the statutory purpose of limiting their validity to one year, and that such repeated notifications without fresh consultation and consideration of ground realities are impermissible.
4.6. Petitioners further contend that Section 3A notification is a crucial stage in acquisition proceedings and failure to provide particulars of land as required under Section 3A(2) deprives land owners of meaningful opportunity to object, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Rejection of the District Collector's recommendation dated 17.05.2022 vide 22 letter dated 13.06.2022 is arbitrary, biased and mala fide, particularly when Environmental Clearance had not been obtained at that stage. The subsequent concurrence of the State Government dated 01.02.2024 is only a change of opinion due to change in political regime and does not alter the factual position on ground, and that the impugned alignment is influenced by political and vested interests. Environmental Clearance process was undertaken belatedly and in haste, and that public hearings conducted thereafter do not cure the illegality of prior actions.
4.7. Petitioners further contend that the project has been artificially segmented into smaller stretches of 16.67 Km and 29.92 Kim to circumvent the requirement of comprehensive Environmental Clearance applicable to projects exceeding threshold limits, which is impermissible in law. Segmentation of projects to avoid environmental scrutiny has been held illegal by judicial precedents, and that the present case squarely falls within such prohibited practice. It is stated, Respondents have failed to comply with the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways, 2018 and Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, which are essential governing norms beyond the limited provisions of Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956.
234.8. Petitioners also contend that the width of the impugned Greenfield Highway is fixed at 45 meters, which is contrary to the prescribed minimum width of 60 meters, rendering the project itself illegal. Respondents have issued Section 3D notification dated 06.09.2024 in respect of certain petitioners despite interim orders dated 09.07.2024 directing maintenance of status quo, thereby acting in violation of orders of this Court
5. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General, Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.
6. The challenge in the present writ petition is directed against the Gazette Notification bearing S.O. 909 (E) dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in respect of acquisition of land for formation of NH- 163G for the stretch from Km 220.48 to Km 250.400 in Khammam District. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the National Highways Act, 1956 is a self-contained code providing a complete statutory mechanism for acquisition of land for National Highways. Section 3A contemplates issuance of a preliminary notification expressing the intention of the Central Government to acquire land, Section 3C provides for 24 filing of objections by interested persons and consideration thereof by the competent authority, and Section 3D provides for declaration acquisition upon such consideration.
7. It is also well-settled that a notification issued under Section 3A(0) is only a preliminary step in the acquisition process, the primary purpose of which is to invite objections from interested persons, and the statute itself confers a specific right upon such persons to submit objections before the competent authority under Section 3C. In the present case, Petitioners raised several contentions relating to alleged non- compliance with Section 3A(2), improper alignment, violation of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, absence of adequate public consultation, alleged mala fides, impact on habitations and feasibility of alternative alignments.
8. However, a careful examination of the nature of the contentions reveals that the issues raised by Petitioners are predominantly factual and technical in nature, requiring detailed examination of alignment studies, environmental reports, comparative feasibility of alternatives, ground realities and expert material. Such issues, by their very nature, necessitate appreciation of evidence, examination of technical data and evaluation of competing considerations, which fall squarely within the domain of the competent authority 25 designated under the statute. Further, the contention relating to alleged non-disclosure of particulars under Section 3A(2), adequacy of description of lands, and the consequential inability to raise objections, are also matters which can be effectively urged before the competent authority under Section 3C, which is empowered to consider all objections and pass appropriate orders.
9. This Court also takes note of the stand of the Respondents that Environmental Clearance has been granted after following the procedure prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and EIA Notification, 2006, and that alignment has been finalized after consideration of alternative options. Whether such procedures have been strictly complied with, whether the Environmental Clearance suffers from any infirmity, and whether the alignment is in conformity with applicable guidelines are all questions which involve disputed facts and technical evaluation and are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction at this preliminary stage.
10. It is trite law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not ordinarily undertake adjudication of disputed questions of fact, particularly in matters involving technical expertise and policy decisions, unless there is a clear case of patent illegality or lack 26 of jurisdiction. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstance is made out warranting interference at the stage of Section 3A notification, especially when the statute itself provides an efficacious remedy for redressal of grievances.
11. It is also a settled principle of law that when a statute provides a complete machinery for redressal of grievances, the aggrieved party must ordinarily exhaust such statutory remedy before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, unless there are compelling reasons to bypass the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioners have an effective and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 3C of the Act to raise all their objections, including those relating to alignment, environmental concerns, procedural irregularities and violation of statutory provisions. The competent authority, upon receipt of such objections, is under a statutory obligation to consider the same and pass a reasoned order, and therefore the Petitioners cannot be said to be without remedy.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage, as the Petitioners have not exhausted the statutory remedy available to them under the Act.
27
13. 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 Act within the time permissible in law. It is made clear that if such objections are filed, the competent authority shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all the contentions raised. It is further observed that all contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged before the competent authority, and no opinion is expressed by this Court on the merits of the case. No costs.
14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 07th April 2026 ksld