Telangana High Court
Yandapalli Satyanarayana 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. 20308 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Yandapalli Satyanarayana & others
..... Petitioners
And
The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioners contend that they are the absolute owners of lands situated in Regulachalaka Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, more particularly: (1) Yandapalli Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkaiah, owning lands in Sy. Nos (86 / A) / 2 88/Α/11/1, 89/Ε, 91 / A (92 / A) / 3 (92 / A) / 4 93/U, 95/A/1, 95/A/2, (95 / A) / 3 98/A/1 and 99/A/2; (2) Mareddy Sudharani, W/o Veeraiah, owning lands in Sy. Nos. (18 / A) / 1 89 / A 01/E, 92/A/1, 92/A/2, (6 / A) / 4 97/E, 100/E, 101 / U 103/A/3, 103/A/1 and 103/A/3; and (3) Koti Swathi, W/o Ramesh, owning lands in Sy. Nos. 18/A/4/1, 21/A/2. 92 / A 96/A/A5, 97/A, 97 / A (9 / A) / 1 (100 / A) / 1 101/E, 101 /U, 103/A/4 and 105/A, and that all the said lands contain black granite in huge 2 quantity and the Petitioners hold valid mining licenses as evidenced by Ex.- P17.
1.1. Petitioners contend that they approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Greenfield Highway NH-163G alignment covered by 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 the stretch from Kim 203.8 to Km 220.48 as mala fide, illegal and violative of the National Highways Act. 1956, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways, Article 300A, principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and for consequential relief of restraining the respondents from proceeding further.
1.2. Petitioners further contend that as per the letter of NHAI Project Implementation Unit-I, Khammam dated 08.02.2024, the impugned Nagpur-Vijayawada NH-163G Greenfield Highway alignment was approved by NHAI oft 03.01.2019 and by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, and thereafter successive notifications under Section 3A(1) of the Act were issued, culminating in Notification 3 No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 and Notification under Section 3D dated 04.09.2023 covering a stretch of 16.6 km. 1.3. Petitioners also contend that they have been subjected to continuous uncertainty and mental agony from the year 2019 onwards on account of repeated notifications, and that though Section 3A(1) notifications lapse after one year, the Respondents have been reissuing notifications without justification, without taking into account changes on ground and concerns of stakeholders, and without repeating the entire process of survey and public consultation, thereby tendering the exercise arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Act. 1.4. Petitioners further contend that the District Collector, Khammam, by letter dated 17.05 2022 addressed to the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, specifically pointed out that the impugned alignment was finalized without consultation with Khammam Municipality, Roads and Buildings 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 indicating that the cost of acquisition for the impugned alignment would be exorbitantly high. The District Collector in the said letter further stated that the State Government had planned a ring road for Khammam and had released Rs.200 4 crores for land acquisition, and that the entire Khammam city falls within 15 km aerial distance from the project boundary, affecting nearly 5 lakh population, and further pointed out that the area had already become urbanized due to construction of the new Collectorate near V. Venkatayapalem and the proposed ring road, resulting in potential loss of commercial house plots. 1.5. Petitioners contend that the Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, Khammam, namely Nama Nageswara Rao, addressed a letter to the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways requesting shifting of the alignment by at least five kilometers in view of the State Government master plans and urbanization, and that two Rajya Sabha Members also addressed similar letters seeking change of alignment. Several land losers similarly situated have approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 3921 of 2023, 20359 of 2023, 9109 of 2024 and 14632 of 2024 and obtained interim orders. Petitioners also contend that the impugned Gazette Notification issued under Section 3A(1) is in clear violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as only vague and misleading particulars of lands were furnished, thereby depriving affected persons of the opportunity to file meaningful objections, and further that publication was made in newspapers such as Hans India and 5 Mana Telangana which have limited circulation, with the intent of avoiding public notice.
1.6. Petitioners contend that the impugned notifications are in derogation of the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the Act, particularly with regard to assessment of cost of acquisition, which mandates indicative assessment of land acquisition cost based on collector rates before issuance of Section 3D notification and requires alignment changes if costs are prohibitively high. Petitioners also contend that Respondents have violated the said Manual with respect to segmentation of the project, which mandates issuance of composite notifications within one jurisdiction, whereas the Respondents have intentionally bifurcated the project into stretches of less than 30 km to circumvent legal requirements and have failed to consult the District Collector regarding cost implications, despite the Collector's letter dated 17.05.2022.
1.7. Petitioners further contend that the impugned alignment is contrary to the Manual with regard to width of the project, inasmuch as the impugned Greenfield Highway has a width of 45 meters near V. Venkatayapalem, whereas the Manual prescribes a minimum right of way of 60 meters for a 4/6/8 lane highway and 90 meters for an expressway, and 6 therefore the project is illegal and contrary to prescribed norms. Petitioners also contend that the Manual envisages acquisition of 60 to 70 meters right of way for Greenfield highways to cater to long-term traffic requirements of 30 to 40 years and for expansion up to 8 lanes with service roads, which has not been followed in the present case.
1.8. Petitioners further contend that impugned alignment violates the Manual with respect to route selection, which requires adoption of a crow-flight route with minimal deviation and at a reasonable distance from existing habitations, whereas the present alignment deviates from such principles. The impugned alignment is in contravention of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines dated 14.09.2006 and amendment dated 01.12.2009, inasmuch as the project has been wrongly treated as Category "B" instead of Category "A", despite satisfying the criteria of length exceeding 30 km, width exceeding 20 meters and inter-state connectivity, thereby requiring extensive public consultations. Respondents have deliberately segmented the project into stretches of less than 30 km, including the present stretch of 16.6 km. to circumvent the requirement of treating the project as Category "A", which is impermissible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020 in The National 7 Highways Authority of India v Pandarinathan Govindarajulu.
1.9. Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment is in violation of EIA Guidelines relating to local development plans, which require consideration of existing development plans, alternative alignments and consultation with local authorities, and that the District Collector in his letter dated 17.05.2022 specifically stated that the alignment was finalized without such consultation. The impugned alignment violates EIA Guidelines relating to land use plans and environmental sensitivity, as the entire Khammam city falls within 15 km of the project boundary, affecting a population of about 5 lakh, and that sensitive areas including hospitals, schools and community facilities were not properly considered. Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment violates EIA Guidelines relating to mitigation of air pollution, which require selection of alignment avoiding proximity to housing, schools and hospitals.
1.10. Petitioners further contend that the impugned alignment violates EIA Guidelines relating to noise environment, which mandate development of bypass roads to avoid noise sensitive areas, whereas the present alignment passes within a few feet of the District Collector's office, Harvest Public School, 8 Government Medical College and V. Venkatayapalem Village. The impugned alignment is mala fide in its design, inasmuch as instead of adopting a crow-flight route from Warangal to Vijayawada through the western side of Khammam, the Respondents have taken the alignment to the eastern side, making a right turn, unnecessarily crossing the Muneru river and increasing the length of the highway, with the intention of benefiting certain influential persons at the cost of public interest. Respondents have acted in haste and clandestinely by issuing notifications under Section 3A(1) without conducting proper surveys, public consultations or involving local bodies, and by publishing notifications in newspapers with limited circulation, and by not providing brief particulars as mandated under Section 3A(2), thereby violating principles of natural justice. Petitioners also contend that several Gram Panchayats have passed resolutions opposing the impugned alignment and have stated that they were not aware of the environmental clearance process, as evidenced by Exs.P11 and P12, demonstrating absence of public consultation. 1.11. Petitioners further contend that as per reply dated 08.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act, it was stated that the alignment was finalized after deliberations between the Chairman, NHAI and the State Government, without specifying 9 the date of such decision, which could not have been prior to 17.05.2022, thereby rendering earlier approvals dated 03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020 illegal. The 5th Respondent, by reply dated 26.10.2021 under the RTI Act, refused to furnish information citing NHAI Headquarters Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2021 and a High Court judgment dated 09.07.2021, without providing copies thereof, thereby acting mala fide. The Executive Summary dated November 2021 submitted by ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. states that baseline study was conducted only between April 2021 and June 2021, which raises serious doubt as to how notifications were issued as early as 2019 and 17.05.2021, indicating premeditated and perfunctory exercise.
1.12. Petitioners also contend that the selection of impugned alignment "A" out of alternatives "A", "B" and "C" is mala fide, as the consultant's report is cryptic, perfunctory and does not provide quantitative or qualitative analysis, does not consider other parameters under the Manual, and fails to properly evaluate alternative alignments. The consultant failed to consider public consultation, involvement of local authorities, EIA Guidelines, Land Acquisition Guidelines and mitigation measures, and that the reasoning based on felling of "some" or "more" trees is vague and insufficient. Respondents have shown 10 disregard to judicial process by continuing to issue notifications and proceed with the project despite interim orders granted in similar writ petitions. Petitioners finally contend that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2866-2880 of 2011 in Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty, though highway alignments are ordinarily not interfered with, the present case falls within the exception of mala fides and violation of statutory provisions, warranting interference by this Court,
2. Respondents contend that the 3rd Respondent, namely the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), is a statutory authority constituted by an Act of Parliament and is entrusted with the responsibility of 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, undertaken keeping in view national interest, regional development and the objective of improving inter-State connectivity, and that the Khammam-Vijayawada section of NH- 163G is an integral part of the said corridor. Due care was taken while fixing the alignment of the project by considering optimal and feasible alignment options in light of prevailing developments, and that necessary precautions were taken to 11 avoid existing habitats, settlements, water bodies and religious structures, and that the alignment was finalized after reconnaissance survey and detailed deliberations by the competent authority.
2.1. Respondents further contend that a meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Road Transport and Highways), New Delhi, wherein alignment options for the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor as presented by the DPR Consultant were deliberated, and Option-1, namely the present alignment bypassing hills and forest sections, was agreed upon. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting held on 20.08.2020, deliberated the matter and accorded approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial-Vijayawada Corridor with a right of way of 45 meters. Respondents further contend that earlier notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 had lapsed due to various reasons, and therefore a fresh Gazette Notification bearing No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 was issued under Section 3A(1) covering an extent of 82.79 hectares, duly providing brief description of land as required under Section 3A(2) of the Act.
2.2. Respondents also contend that the format adopted for publication of Section 3A notifications is standardized across 12 the country and that it the stage of Section 3A notification, only preliminary assessment based on revenue maps and reference points is undertaken without entering into the land, and that detailed particulars of land and land owners can be ascertained only after survey under Section 3B. After publication of Section 3A notification, the authority is empowered under Section 38 to enter the land for survey, and that only after conducting Joint Measurement Survey with revenue authorities, exact survey number-wise details of affected lands along with names of land owners or interested persons can be determined. 2.3. Respondents also contend that after completion of such Joint Measurement Survey, Gazette Notification bearing No. S.O. 3928(E) dated 04.09.2023 was issued under Section 3D of the Act, duly specifying details of farmers and extent of land required for acquisition. The project stretch was divided into several packages only for convenience of construction and ease of implementation, and that environmental clearance as well as notifications under Sections 3A and 3D were issued stretch-wise, namely Warangal-Khammam and Khammam- Vijayawada, and not in the form of packages, and therefore the allegation of segmentation to circumvent law is incorrect. The notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D were made available in the public domain through platforms such as the 13 Bhoomi Rasi Portal and the Government of India e-Gazette website.
2.4. Respondents further contend that the proposed alignment does not obstruct or create any impediment to the proposed Khammam ring road and that the State Government is free to take up the said project. It is a fact that the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter Rc. No, G1/2771/2018 dated 17.05.2022, requested for change of alignment, but the said request was examined and was rejected by the 4th Respondent vide letter dated 13.06.2022 on the ground that change of alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the status of land acquisition, environmental clearance and other project- related considerations. The State Government, vide letter No. 2689/R1(2)/2019 dated 01.02.2024, conveyed its concurrence for the original alignment finalized by NHAI, and consequently a fresh Section 3A notification bearing No. S.O. 911(E) dated 26.02.2024 was issued.
2.5. Respondents also contend that with regard to environmental clearances, due procedure as prescribed under EIA Notification, 2006 was followed and requisite documents and reports were submitted, and that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) granted Environmental Clearance for the project titled "Development of 14 4-Lane Access Controlled new Greenfield Highway section of Warangal to Khammam of length 108.240 Km from Design Chainage 112-240 to Design Chainage 220+480 under other Economic Corridor (NHO) Programme in the State of Telangana"
vide EC Identification No. EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023. Respondents further contend that the Terms of Reference for the project, proposals were approved by the Ministry vide letter No. F.No.10/32/2021-1A.111 dated 16.08.2021.
2.6. Respondents also contend that in compliance with the approved Terms of Reference, public hearings were conducted after due notice in newspapers and in the respective villages, namely Raghunadhapalem village in Khammam District and Ayyagaripalle village in Mahabubabad District, presided over by the Additional District Collectors and Additional District Magistrates of the respective districts in the presence of Environmental Engineers, and that the issues raised by the public were duly addressed before grant of Environmental Clearance on 16.02.2023. The Environmental Clearance was published in newspapers namely "The Hindu" and "Mana Telangana" on 18.02.2023, and that the same was also communicated vide letter dated 23:02.2023 to all Tahsildar offices of the mandals falling within the alignment with a 15 request to display the same on notice boards for public access. Respondents also contend that the District Collector. Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the Member Secretary, MoEF&CC, Government of India, stated that there would be no major impact on forest and environment in Khammam District due to the project.
2.7. Respondents further contend that the Environmental Clearance was obtained by treating the project as Category "A", and therefore the contention of Petitioners that it was wrongly treated as Category "B" is incorrect. The Environmental Clearance was obtained for the entire Warangal- Khammam section, and that segmentation into three packages was only for the purpose of competitive bidding and ease of implementation. Land acquisition for the project is being undertaken 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 for land and other associated properties is being determined and paid in accordance with the said enactments.
3. Petitioners contend that the present writ petition is part of a group of seven writ petitions, out of which Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20359 of 2024 and 16 22802 of 2024 pertain to a stretch from V. Venkatayapalem (V) to Brahmana Palli (V) covering 29.92 km forming part of Khammam to Vijayawada section, situated on the southern side of the District Collector's Office, V. Venkatayapalem, and the remaining three writ petitions bearing Writ Petitions. 14632 of 2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024 pertain to a stretch of 16.67 km from Tirdhala (V) to V. Venkatayapalem (V) forming part of Warangal to Khammam section situated on the northern side, and that both the stretches fall under the jurisdiction of Khammam R.D.O., separated by 100 Feet Wyra Road, and are interconnected, thereby requiring simultaneous consideration.
3.1. Petitioners further contend that counter affidavit filed by Respondents 3 to 5 is incomplete and irregular, as it does not deal with the paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the Petitioners in their entirety and fails to answer most of the issues raised therein, and that the contents of the counter are liable to be treated as denied except to the extent specifically admitted. Petitioners also contend that the assertion of the Respondents that due care was taken in fixing the alignment is false, and that the impugned alignment passes through 725 house sites of 70 square yards each allotted to landless poor by the State Government, out of which about 400 house sites are directly affected, and the remaining are likely to be adversely 17 affected due to pollution from the highway. Petitioners further contend that due care was not exercised in fixing the alignment near the District Collector's Office at V. Venkatayapalem, which is a work place and a noise sensitive area housing several revenue courts, and that the alignment passes at a distance of about 200 feet from the said office, and that the District Collector himself had addressed a letter dated 17.05.2022 seeking change of alignment.
3.2. Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment is in close proximity to several sensitive and populated areas, including the new Government Medical College at a distance of about 120 feet, another colony of about 500 house sites at a distance of about 420 feet, V. Venkatayapalem Gram Panchayat having a population of about 5000 at about 300 meters, and that Khammam Municipal Corporation limits are within less than one kilometer, thereby demonstrating violation of Environmental Impact Assessment norms. Due to construction of the new Collectorate, proposed ring road and other developmental activities, several thousands of house sites have come up in the area through which the impugned alignment passes, and that Khammam town has expanded by at least 5 km beyond the alignment, thereby showing that the alignment passes through human habitations, commercial 18 plots, educational institutions and important work places in violation of EIA Guidelines and the Manual of Land Acquisition. Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment passes near Khanapuram Haveli village at a distance of about 400 feet, and that the EIA Guidelines require that alignment should avoid human habitations and noise sensitive areas or provide bypass roads.
3.3. It is also contended, the alignment is not in a crow- flight route but is semi-circular and curved, thereby increasing the length of the highway, which is contrary to Circular No. NH- 15017/21/2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, mandating that highways should follow a crow-flight route with minimal deviation from the starting point to the end point. Notifications under Section 3A(1) of the Act were issued without conducting surveys, without public consultation and without obtaining Environmental Clearance Certificate, as evident from the dates mentioned in the Environmental Clearance documents. Respondents have ignored the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2006 and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the Act, despite detailed references made by Petitioners in their affidavit.
193.4. Petitioners also contend that the approval dates relied upon by the Respondents are contradictory, inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Committee is stated to have approved the alignment on 20.08.2020, whereas notifications under Section 3A(1) were issued as early as 17.05.2019 vide S.O. No. 1914(E), and that Environmental Clearance was obtained much later. The impugned Greenfield Highway having a width of 45 meters is contrary to the Manual of Highways which prescribes a minimum width of 60 meters, and that such deviation is illegal. It is also stated, Environmental Clearance Certificate No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023 for the Khammam to Vijayawada stretch contains generalized and incorrect data, including statements that wheat is a main crop in the area and that the area within 10 km is predominantly agricultural and uninhabited, whereas in reality Khammam Municipal Corporation with a population of about 5 lakh lies within 10 km.
3.5. Petitioners further contend that the DPR Consultant, namely M/s. ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., in its report dated November 2021, stated that baseline studies were conducted between April 2021 and June 2021, which contradicts the issuance of Section 3A notifications prior thereto. Environmental Clearance Certificate No. 20 EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023 for Warangal to Khammam stretch similarly contains incorrect and generalized data and fails to reflect the actual ground realities, including population density and land use. The dates mentioned in the Environmental Clearance Certificates belie the issuance of earlier notifications under Section 3A(1), thereby demonstrating that the Respondents acted without completing prerequisite procedures. The letter dated 08.02.2024 of the 5th Respondent stating that the alignment was approved on 03.01.2019 is incorrect, and that the statement that the alignment was finalized after deliberations with the Chairman, NHAI and the State Government is a belated justification.
3.6. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents ought to have consulted the State Government, local revenue authorities, municipal authorities, local bodies and obtained Environmental Clearance prior to issuance of Section 3A(1) notification, as required under the Manual of Guidelines. Respondents cannot repeatedly issue Section 3A(1) notifications year after year upon lapse, and that the purpose of limiting validity to one year is to ensure meaningful reconsideration including public consultation and consideration of developments on ground. The contention of Respondents that Section 3A notifications are issued without detailed particulars 21 is legally untenable, as Section 3A(2) mandates furnishing of brief but meaningful particulars of land to enable stakeholders to file objections, and that failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. Petitioners also contend that furnishing land particulars at the stage of Section 3D notification is of no consequence, as objections to alignment cannot be raised at that stage. Segmentation of the project into stretches of 16.67 km and 29.92 km is illegal and intended to circumvent Environmental Impact Assessment requirements, and that such segmentation has been held impermissible by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020. 3.7. Petitioners also contend that the impugned alignment obstructs the proposed Khammam ring road, inasmuch as the highway is proposed at a height of about 15 feet, thereby preventing construction of underpasses or flyovers without Union Government approval and effectively separating Khammam town from the Collector's office and surrounding areas. The impugned alignment would adversely affect drainage and flood flow, particularly at the intersection near Wyra Road, acting as a barrier like a tank bund and leading to flooding of surrounding areas including the Collector's office and nearby lands. Rejection of the District Collector's request dated 17.05.2022 for change of alignment by letter dated 13.06.2022 22 is arbitrary, prejudiced and mala fide, particularly as Environmental Clearance had not even been obtained by that time. The concurrence of the State Government vide letter dated 01.02.2024 cannot validate earlier actions, and that earlier the State Government had sought change of alignment considering its plans for ring road, allocation of Rs.209 crores for land acquisition, construction of Collectorate, housing schemes and Government Medical College.
3.8. Petitioners also contend that the alleged concurrence is merely a change of opinion due to political considerations and does not alter the factual situation on ground, and that the impugned alignment continues to be mala fide and illegal, causing irreparable loss and mental agony to affected land owners. Respondents have acted in haste and in violation of law by issuing notifications prior to conducting ground studies and prior to obtaining Environmental Clearance, and that Environmental Clearances for Warangal to Khammam (EC Identification No. EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023) and Khammam to Vijayawada (EC Identification No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023) were obtained belatedly after issuance of notifications. Public hearings for Environmental Clearance were conducted only in the month of February/March 2022, after issuance of notifications, and 23 therefore the entire process is vitiated. Respondents failed to follow EIA Guidelines and the Manual of Land Acquisition, which mandate extensive public consultation prior to Environmental Clearance, consideration of alternative alignments, adherence to crow-flight route, and avoidance of human habitations and sensitive areas.
3.9. Petitioners also contend that mere compliance with the National Highways Act, 1956 and the RFCTLARR Act. 2013 is not sufficient, and that the Respondents are bound to comply with the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways, 2018 and EIA Guidelines, 2006, which have been completely ignored. They finally contend that the DPR report submitted by M/s. ENVIRO INFRA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. in November 2021 is cryptic and tailor-made, and though it considered three alternative alignments, the recommendation of Option-1 is based on vague reasoning such as lesser felling of trees without proper comparative analysis, and that the entire alignment from Warangal to Vijayawada is irrational, as the highway could have followed a crow-flight route from the western side of Khammam without crossing the Muneru river.
4. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, 24 Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General, Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.
5. At the outset, it is to be noted that the impugned notifications have been issued under Sections 3A(1) and 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in relation to acquisition of land for formation of a Greenfield National Highway, namely NH-163G, forming part of a larger corridor connecting Nagpur to Vijayawada under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I. The principal grievance of petitioners centers around the alignment of the said highway, alleging that the same is arbitrary, mala fide and in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways and constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
6. Petitioners have also raised multiple contentions relating to alleged absence of proper public consultation, improper segmentation of the project, violation of statutory guidelines, inadequacy of particulars in notifications under Section 3A(1), and alleged deviations from environmental norms. On the other hand, Respondents have placed material on record to demonstrate that alignment was finalized after due deliberations by the competent authority in meetings held on 03.01.2019 and 20.08.2020, that successive notifications were 25 issued in accordance with the statutory scheme, and that Environmental Clearance was obtained on 16.02.2023 after conducting public hearings in the project area. It is also brought on record by the Respondents that the project forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure corridor aimed at improving inter-State connectivity and regional development, and that the alignment was selected based on feasibility considerations after reconnaissance survey and evaluation of alternatives. In the above backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate to first examine the statutory framework governing the field.
7. The National Highways Act, 1956 provides a complete and self-contained mechanism for acquisition of land for National Highways, beginning with issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) indicating intention to acquire land, followed by inviting objections, conducting surveys under Section 3B, and culminating in declaration under Section 3D(1) whereby the land vests in the Central Government. The scheme of the Act thus contemplates a structured process wherein affected persons are provided an opportunity to raise objections and seek redressal within the statutory framework itself. It is also evident that issues relating to alignment, feasibility, selection of route and other technical considerations are integral to the execution of large-scale infrastructure projects and 26 involve evaluation of complex technical, environmental and economic factors.
8. The contentions raised by Petitioners, upon careful examination, pertain substantially to such aspects, including the suitability of alignment, adequacy of surveys, correctness of environmental assessment, and alleged deviation from guidelines. These issues, by their very nature, involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of technical data, expert reports, feasibility studies and ground-level assessments, which are not amenable to adjudication in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that matters relating to fixation of alignment of National Highways and similar infrastructure projects fall within the domain of expert bodies, and the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited. The Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, does not sit in appeal over the decisions of expert authorities, particularly in matters involving technical expertise, unless the decision is shown to be ex facie arbitrary, contrary to statutory provisions or vitiated by established mala fides.
10. In the present case, though Petitioners made allegations of mala fides and violation of statutory provisions, 27 such allegations are seriously disputed by Respondents, who have placed material indicating compliance with the statutory procedure, approvals by competent authorities and grant of Environmental Clearance after due process. This Court finds that the determination of whether the alignment is appropriate or whether alternative alignments are preferable would necessarily require detailed examination of technical material, expert reports and comparative analysis, which is beyond the permissible scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction.
11. Similarly, issues relating to adequacy of particulars under Section 3A(1), sufficiency of public consultation, and compliance with environmental norms are matters which can appropriately be raised and adjudicated within the statutory framework itself. It is also pertinent to note that the National Highways Act, 1956 provides for submission of objections and consideration thereof by the competent authority, thereby affording an effective opportunity to the affected land owners to ventilate their grievances. The existence of such an effective statutory remedy is a relevant consideration which ordinarily restrains this Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly when disputed questions of fact are involved.
28
12. This Court is also mindful of the fact that large- scale infrastructure projects such as National Highways are undertaken in public interest and involve substantial planning and investment, and therefore, interference at an intermediate stage, in the absence of clear illegality, may not be warranted. Insofar as the allegation of mala fides is concerned, this Court finds that the same has been asserted in general terms and is not supported by specific and cogent material of such nature as would warrant interference at this stage. It is trite law that allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with specificity and established with clear evidence, and cannot be inferred on mere conjectures or suspicions. In the present case, the material placed on record by the Respondents, including approvals, notifications and environmental clearance, prima facie indicate that the statutory procedure has been followed.
13. This Court is therefore, of the considered opinion that the issues raised by the Petitioners are not such as would justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage. On the contrary, Petitioners have an effective and efficacious alternative remedy available under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 to raise all their grievances, including those relating to alignment, acquisition and compensation.
29
14. It is well settled that when such alternative remedy exists, particularly under a complete statutory framework, this Court would ordinarily decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. No such exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case so as to bypass the statutory mechanism and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this Court holds that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that writ petition is liable to be disposed of, leaving it open to Petitioners to avail the alternative statutory remedy available under the National Highways Act, 1956.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to Petitioners to raise all the contentions urged in the present writ petition before the competent authority in accordance with law. It is further directed that if objections or representations are filed by Petitioners, the competent authority shall consider the same objectively, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders after affording due opportunity to Petitioners. No costs.
30
17. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 07th April 2026 ksld