Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Telangana High Court

Muvva Jyothi 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. 22802 OF 2024

                            07.04.2026
Between:

Muvva Jyothi & others
                                                    ..... Petitioners
And

The Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi & others.
                                                  ..... Respondents

O R D E R:

The case of petitioners is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of various extents of lands situated at V. Venkatayapalem, Khammam District, comprising specific survey numbers and plot numbers, details of which are as follows:

(1) Muvva Jyothi, W/o Nagaeswara Rao, aged 50 years, land in Sy.No. 246/El, Plot Nos. 15 and 16 admeasuring 424.00 square yards; (2) Kadiyala Venkateswarlu, C/o Buchaiah, aged 68 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot Nos. 66 and 67 admeasuring 440.00 square yards; (3) Chava Rama Linga Vara Prasad, S/o Narsaiah, aged 69 years, land in Sy.Nos.

253/A and 254/A, Plot No. 1 admeasuring 1200.00 square yards; (4) Regalla Raja Reddy, C/o Regalla Ranga Reddy, aged about 55 years, land in Sy.No. 248/E, Plot Nos. 119 and 120 2 admeasuring 330.00 square yards; (5) Sayed Shahira, W/o Sadhik, aged 35 years, land in Sy.Nos. 248/E1, 251/A1, 248/E2, 251/A2 and 251/A3, Plot No. 21 admeasuring 240.00 square yards; (6) Mohammad Fouzia Parveen, W/o Apsar, aged 54 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot Nos. 35, 36, 69 and 70, each admeasuring 220.00 square yards, totalling 880.00 square yards; (7) Alla Rama Rao, S/o Narayana, aged 67 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot No. 17 admeasuring 220.00 square yards; (8) Lakkineni Satyanarayana, S/o Kishaiah, aged 70 years, land in Sy.No. 253/A, Plot No. 21 admeasuring 220.00 square yards; (9) Vadlamudi Vijay, S/o Rama Rao, aged 35 years, land in Sy No. 253/A, Plot No. 65 admeasuring 220.00 square yards, and (10) Macha Ramesh, C/o Chalamaiah, aged 56 years, land in Sy.No. 248/A, Plot No. 165 admeasuring 201.00 square yards. 1.1 Petitioners further contend that the impugned Greenfield Highway alignment forms part of Nagpur to Vijayawada NH-163G corridor and that the said alignment was approved by the National Highways Authority of India on 03.01.2019 and thereafter, by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, and since then successive notifications under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') have been issued, culminating in the present impugned Gazette Notification No. S.O. 909 (E), dated 26.02.2024. 3 1.2. It is stated, petitioners have been subjected to continuous uncertainty, hardship and mental agony for nearly six years commencing from the first notification dated 03.01.2019 till the issuance of the impugned notification dated 26.02.2024, thereby causing grave prejudice to their property rights and preventing any meaningful utilization or development of their lands. The District Collector, Khammam, by the letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed through the Chief Secretary to the concerned authorities, specifically pointed out that the impugned alignment was finalized without consultation with local authorities including 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 cost of acquisition under the impugned alignment would be exorbitantly high, and also brought to the notice that the State Government had already planned a ring road for Khammam and sanctioned Rs.200 crores for land acquisition.

1.3. Petitioners further contend that the Member of Parliament, Khammam Parliamentary Constituency, Sri Nama Nageswara Rao, by letter dated 11.11.2022 addressed to the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, requested 4 that impugned alignment be shifted by at least five kilometers in view of the State Government's master plan for development of Khammam and the proposed ring road. Several similarly- situated land losers have approached this Court in Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 20359 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 14632 of 2024 and 20308 of 2024 and this Court granted interim orders in those matters. It is also stated, the Environmental Clearance Certificate bearing No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023 was obtained only subsequently, whereas the respondents had issued notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the 1956 Act right from 2019 onwards without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance, which renders the entire process illegal.

1.4. Petitioners further contend that the Environmental Clearance was sought pursuant to proposal number IA/TG/NCP/215098/2021 dated 17.05.2022 and Terms of Reference dated 26.07.2021, and public hearing was conducted on 15.03.2022 at Khammam, which clearly demonstrates that the statutory process of environmental clearance was undertaken much after initiation of acquisition proceedings. Several Gram Panchayats have passed resolutions opposing the impugned alignment and that several public representatives have stated that they were not informed about the 5 Environmental Clearance process, thereby establishing lack of proper public consultation. It is contended, the impugned notification dated 26.02.2024 issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act is in violation of Section 3A(2) inasmuch as it fails to provide proper and meaningful particulars of the lands proposed to be acquired and instead provides vague and misleading details, thereby depriving the Petitioners of an effective opportunity to file objections.

1.5. Respondents deliberately published the impugned notification in newspapers such as Hans India and Mana Telangana, which have very limited circulation in the affected area, with an intention to avoid effective notice to the affected land owners. Respondents issued notifications under Sections 3A and 3D in various stretches from Warangal to Khammam and Khammam to Vijayawada without obtaining Environmental Clearance from the competent authority from 2019 onwards, which is in clear violation of law. Though the Environmental Clearance Certificate for Khammam to Vijayawada stretch was obtained only on 23.01.2023, several notifications under Sections 3A and 3D had already been issued prior thereto, thereby rendering the entire alignment illegal and ex facie mala fide. The impugned notification is in derogation of the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under 6 the 1956 Act, particularly with regard to assessment of cost of acquisition, inasmuch as no proper assessment was made despite the District Collector having specifically indicated that the land value was about Rs.1 Crore per acre.

1.6. Respondents violated the guidelines relating to segmentation of project length, inasmuch as the project has been deliberately bifurcated into stretches less than 30 kilometers, namely 29.92 kilometers and 16.6 kilometers, within the jurisdiction of the same Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, with an intention to circumvent statutory requirements and avoid comprehensive environmental scrutiny. Such segmentation is contrary to the guidelines which mandate issuance of composite notifications within one jurisdiction and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibiting segmentation as a strategy to avoid environmental clearance requirements. The impugned alignment violates the prescribed norms relating to width of Greenfield Highways, inasmuch as the proposed width is only 45 meters, whereas the minimum required right of way is 60 meters for such highways.

1.7. It is contended, the impugned alignment does not adhere to the principle of crow-flight route and instead takes a circuitous path by moving towards the eastern side of 7 Khammam and unnecessarily crossing the Muneru river, thereby increasing the length and cost of the project. The impugned alignment passes in close proximity to sensitive and densely populated areas including the District Collector's office, Government Medical College, Harvest Public School, V. Venkatayapalem village and several residential colonies, which is in clear violation of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. The impugned project was wrongly categorized as a Category "B" project instead of Category "A", despite covering multiple states and exceeding the prescribed thresholds, thereby avoiding mandatory wider public consultation and scrutiny.

1.8. It is also contended, respondents have acted in haste and in a clandestine manner by issuing notifications without proper consultation with local authorities, public representatives and affected land owners and without adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards. Petitioners further contend that the respondents have not provided proper particulars in the notification, have failed to conduct meaningful public consultations, and have ignored objections raised by local bodies and Gram Panchayats. The action of respondents are mala fide and arbitrary, including alleged favouring of certain influential interests and failure to consider alternative 8 alignments objectively. The DPR consultant report submitted by Mis Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in November 2021 is perfunctory, inconsistent with actual ground realities, and based on incorrect data, including baseline studies conducted only between April 2021 and June 2021, whereas notifications had already been issued earlier. Petitioners further contend that the respondents failed to consult the District Collector and other local authorities while finalizing the alignment and ignored relevant factors such as habitation, environmental impact and development plans. Respondents acted in violation of statutory guidelines, including Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2006 and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways, which have statutory force. 1.9. Petitioners further contend that despite interim orders granted by this Court on 21.08.2024 directing maintenance of status quo, respondents continued to proceed with the project, and the said interim orders were subsequently vacated on 13.03.2025, against which Writ Appeal No. 397 of 2025 was filed and disposed of granting liberty to seek appropriate relief. It is also contended vacation of interim orders was based on withdrawal of objections by the Revenue Department and not on merits of the case, and that all other grounds raised by the Petitioners continue to subsist. If further 9 steps are permitted pursuant to the impugned notification, the writ petition itself would become infructuous and Petitioners would suffer grave and irreparable loss. The impugned action violates their valuable constitutional rights under Article 300A and Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Notification is liable to be declared illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and consequently liable to be quashed.

2. Respondents 3 to 5 filed counter contending that Respondent No. 3 is the National Highways Authority of India, a statutory authority constituted under an Act of Parliament, entrusted with the responsibility of development, maintenance and management of National Highways and matters incidental thereto, and is discharging its functions in accordance with the statutory mandate and policy decisions of the Central Government. It is contended, the project in question, namely the development of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor including the Khammam-Vijayawada Section of NH-163G, has been undertaken in the larger national interest under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I with the objective of improving inter-State connectivity, facilitating economic growth and strengthening infrastructure. While finalizing the alignment, due care and diligence were exercised by the competent authorities by 10 considering optimal and feasible alignment options in the light of prevailing ground conditions and developments, and that specific efforts were made to minimize impact on existing habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures. 2.1. Respondents further contend that the alignment was finalized only after conducting reconnaissance surveys and detailed deliberations by expert agencies and thereafter approved by the competent authority in accordance with established procedure. A high-level meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, wherein various alignment options proposed by the DPR Consultant for the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor were examined, and the present alignment (Option-1) which bypasses hilly and forest areas, was approved as the most suitable option. The Land Acquisition Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting held on 20.08.2020, further deliberated upon the alignment and accorded approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial- Vijayawada Corridor with a right of way of 45 meters. 2.2. Respondents contend that earlier notifications issued under Section 3A of the Act had lapsed due to passage of time and other administrative reasons, and therefore a fresh notification vide Gazette Notification No. S.O. 909 (E) dated 11 26.02.2024 was issued covering an extent of 25.52 hectares, including lands in V. Venkatayapalem, Vandanam and other villages, by providing brief particulars as required under Section 3A(2) of the Act. The format of publication of Section 3A notification is standardized and uniformly followed across all projects in the country, and that detailed particulars such as survey-wise measurements and names of landowners are provided only at the stage of Section 3D notification after completion of statutory survey procedures. Under the statutory scheme of the 1956 Act, the Authority is empowered under Section 3B to enter upon the land for the purpose of survey only after issuance of Section 3A notification, and thereafter, upon conducting joint measurement surveys with the revenue authorities, exact details of affected lands and interested persons are ascertained.

2.3. Respondents contend that the request made by the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022 seeking change of alignment was duly considered at the appropriate level, and the same was rejected by Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 13.06.2022 on the ground that any change in alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the progress of land acquisition, environmental clearance and other technical and administrative constraints. The Government of 12 Telangana, after due consideration, conveyed its concurrence to the finalized alignment vide letter dated 01.02.2024, thereby affirming the decision taken by the competent authorities. Environmental Clearance for the project has been duly obtained in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted Environmental Clearance bearing identification No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023 for the development of a 4-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway from V. Venkatayapalem village to Jakkampudi village (NH-16), covering a length of 89.429 kilometers from design chainage 220.480 to 309.909.

2.4. Respondents contend that prior to grant of Environmental Clearance, the Terms of Reference for the project were approved by the Ministry vide letter dated 26.07.2021, and all requisite studies and assessments were conducted in accordance with such Terms of Reference. In compliance with the statutory requirements, public hearings were conducted in the project areas including Khammam District in the State of Telangana and Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, under the supervision of the respective Additional District Collectors and Additional District Magistrates, in the presence of Environmental Engineers, and that the issues raised by the 13 public during such hearings were duly considered and incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan. It is stated, the details of the Environmental Clearance and the outcome of public hearings were duly published in widely circulated newspapers including "The Hindu" and "Mana Telangana" on 23.01.2023 and were also displayed on the notice boards of the concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30 days to ensure public awareness.

2.5. These Respondents contend that the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the Member Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, had specifically conveyed that the project would not have any major adverse impact on forest and environmental aspects in Khammam District. The land acquisition for the project is being undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that all affected landowners are entitled to compensation and other benefits in accordance with the said statutory framework. The allegations made by the Petitioners are unfounded, incorrect and misleading, and that the Petitioners have failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions or 14 procedural irregularity in the process undertaken by the Respondents.

2.6. Respondents further contend that the project is of significant public importance and any interference at this stage would adversely affect infrastructure development and larger public interest. Petitioners have an effective statutory remedy available under Section 3C of the Act to submit objections before the competent authority, and without availing such remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition is premature in nature as the acquisition proceedings are still at an intermediate stage and no declaration under Section 3D of the Act has been issued.

3. Petitioners filed a reply contending that the present writ petition forms part of a group of seven writ petitions, out of which Writ Petitions No. 3921 of 2023, 9109 of 2024, 20659 of 2024 and 22802 of 2024 pertain to one stretch from V. Venkatayapalem (V) to Brahmana Palli (V) covering 29.92 kilometers forming part of the Khammam to Vijayawada section, situated on the southern side of the Khammam District Collector's office. The remaining Writ Petitions No. 14632 of 2024, 20308 of 2024 and 20230 of 2024 pertain to another stretch from Tirdhala (V) to V. Venkatayapalem (V) covering 16.67 kilometers forming part of the Warangal to Khammam 15 section, situated on the northern side of the Collector's office, and both these stretches fall within the jurisdiction of the same Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, thereby clearly indicating deliberate segmentation of the project. Both the aforesaid stretches are intrinsically interconnected, inasmuch as any change in alignment near the Khammam District Collector's office at V. Venkatayapalem or provision of a bypass road would necessarily affect both stretches simultaneously, and therefore the issue ought to be considered holistically rather than in a fragmented manner.

3.1. Petitioners contend that the averments of the Respondents that due care was taken while fixing the alignment are wholly false and contrary to ground realities, and that in fact the impugned alignment passes through 725 house sites of 70 square yards each allotted by the State Government to landless poor persons, out of which about 400 house sites are directly affected and the remaining are also likely to be adversely impacted due to pollution and proximity to the highway. The alignment passes in extremely close proximity to sensitive and critical public infrastructure, including Khammam District Collector's office, which houses several revenue courts and is a noise-sensitive zone, being situated at a distance of approximately 200 feet from the proposed alignment, and that 16 this aspect was specifically highlighted by the District Collector in his letter dated 17.05.2022. The impugned alignment also passes near important establishments including the Government Medical College located at a distance of about 120 feet, a colony of landless poor consisting of approximately 500 house sites situated about 420 feet away, and V. Venkatayapalem village having a population of about 5000 persons situated at a distance of about 300 meters, and further that the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation are within less than one kilometer from the alignment.

3.2. Petitioners further contend that due to the establishment of the new District Collectorate, the proposed ring road and other developmental activities, several thousands of residential plots and constructions have come up in the area, and the impugned alignment passes through such developed and developing areas, contrary to the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition. The alignment also passes in close proximity, at about 400 feet distance, to Khanapuram Haveli village, thereby violating the requirement under Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines to avoid human habitations and noise- sensitive areas. The alignment is not in accordance with the principle of crow-flight route and is instead semi-circular and 17 circuitous in nature, which is contrary to the guidelines issued under Circular No. NH-15017/21/2018 by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which mandate that highways should follow a straight-line alignment avoiding unnecessary deviation. 3.3. Petitioners contend that the Notifications under Section 3A(1) of the Act were issued without conducting proper surveys, without undertaking public consultations and without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance, as is evident from the dates mentioned in the Environmental Clearance certificates. There is a clear contradiction in the stand of the Respondents, inasmuch as while the Land Acquisition Committee is stated to have approved the alignment on 20.08.2020, notifications under Section 3A(1) were issued as early as 17.05.2019 vide S.O. No. 1914 (E), thereby demonstrating procedural irregularity. The Environmental Clearance Certificate No. EC23A054TG132431 dated 23.01.2023 for the Khammam to Vijayawada stretch itself indicates that the proposal was submitted only on 17.05.2022, the Terms of Reference were granted on 26.07.2021, and the public hearing was conducted on 15.03.2022, thereby clearly establishing that the acquisition process commenced much prior to compliance with environmental requirements. 3.4. Petitioners also contend that the Environmental Clearance certificates contain incorrect, generalized and 18 misleading statements, including the assertion that the area is predominantly agricultural and uninhabited and that wheat is a major crop, which is factually incorrect, as the entire Khammam Municipal Corporation area with a population of about five lakh lies within a radius of 10 kilometers. The DPR consultant, namely M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its report dated November 2021, has stated that baseline environmental studies were conducted only during April 2021 to June 2021, which contradicts the issuance of notifications prior to such studies and demonstrates that the process was undertaken in a perfunctory and pre-determined manner. Separate Environmental Clearance Certificates were obtained for Warangal to Khammam stretch (EC No. EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023) and Khammam to Vijayawada stretch (EC No. EC23A034TG132431 dated 23.01.2023), thereby evidencing artificial segmentation of the project to avoid stricter scrutiny. It is also contended, public hearings for environmental clearance were conducted only in March 2022 and February 2023, long after issuance of notifications, thereby rendering the entire process belated and contrary to law.

3.5. Petitioners contend that the respondents have failed to consult local authorities, revenue officials, municipal bodies and stakeholders prior to issuance of Section 3A notification, 19 which is a mandatory requirement under the applicable guidelines. Respondents' assertion that the impugned alignment does not interfere with the proposed ring road is incorrect, as the highway, being elevated at about 15 feet, would physically divide Khammam town and obstruct seamless urban development, and construction of underpasses or flyovers would require approval of the Union Government. The impugned alignment would adversely affect drainage patterns and could lead to flooding, as evidenced by recent rains which have already caused inundation in parts of Khammam, and the proposed highway may act as a barrier similar to a tank bund obstructing natural flow of water.

3.6. Petitioners further contend that repeated issuance of Section 3A notifications after lapse of earlier notifications defeats the purpose of statutory timelines and is an abuse of process, and that the respondents cannot issue successive notifications without undertaking fresh consultations and addressing earlier objections. Section 3A notification is a crucial stage in the acquisition process and must contain sufficient particulars of the land, and that failure to provide such particulars deprives the affected persons of a meaningful opportunity to file objections, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Section 3A(2) of the Act.

3.7. Rejection of the District Collector's request dated 17.05.2022 for change of alignment vide letter dated 13.06.2022 is arbitrary and mala fide, as no substantial steps had been taken at that time and even Environmental Clearance had not been obtained. The concurrence given by the State Government vide letter dated 01.02.2024 does not cure the earlier illegality, and that the change in stance is due to political considerations and not based on objective assessment of facts. Respondents failed to adhere to the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2006 and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways, 2018, which have statutory force, and that reliance solely on the National Highways Act, 1956 and RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is insufficient. Petitioners contend that the impugned alignment is illegal even on the ground that the width of the Greenfield Highway is proposed as 45 meters instead of the minimum required 60 meters. 3.8. Petitioners contend that the DPR report recommending Option-1 alignment is arbitrary, cryptic and not based on proper comparative analysis, and that alternative alignments were not objectively evaluated, and the report appears to be a tailor-made exercise. The entire process suffers from mala fides, colourable exercise of power and violation of statutory provisions, including deliberate segmentation of the 21 project to avoid environmental clearance requirements, as held impermissible by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2866-2880 of 2011 (Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty), interference by the Court is warranted in cases where the acquisition is ex facie contrary to law or vitiated by mala fides, both of which are present in the instant case.

4. Heard 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, learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and General Administration.

5. This Court, at the outset, finds that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned Gazette Notification has been issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act, notifying the intention of the Central Government to acquire certain lands for the purpose of formation of the Greenfield Highway NH-163G. The scheme of the National Highways Act, 1956, in so far as acquisition of land is concerned, is a self- contained code which prescribes a sequential and structured procedure beginning with issuance of a preliminary notification under Section 3A(1), followed by inviting objections from 22 interested persons under Section 3C, and culminating in a declaration under Section 3D, upon consideration of such objections. Issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) is only a preliminary step which indicates the intention of the Government to acquire the land and does not, by itself, determine any rights conclusively, and that the statute specifically provides an opportunity to the affected landowners to file their objections under Section 3C within the prescribed time.

6. It is to be noted, the contentions raised by Petitioners primarily relate to the legality and propriety of the alignment, alleged violations of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, alleged mala fides in the decision- making process, non-compliance with statutory guidelines, and other procedural irregularities. Such contentions, by their very nature, involve examination of factual aspects including location of alignment, impact on habitations. Compliance with environmental norms, adequacy of particulars in the notification, and other technical considerations, which necessarily require detailed factual inquiry and evaluation by the competent authority.

7. The National Highways Act, 1956 expressly provides a mechanism under Section 3C whereby any person interested 23 in the land notified under Section 3A(1) may file objections to the use of such land for the purpose mentioned in the notification, and the competent authority is mandated to give an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order thereon. The specific stand of Respondents that the acquisition proceedings are presently at the stage of Section 3A notification and that no declaration under Section 3D has been issued, thereby indicating that the statutory process is still in progress and has not attained finality.

8. When a statute provides a complete and efficacious machinery for redressal of grievances, including an opportunity of hearing and adjudication by a competent authority, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not to be invoked at an intermediate stage, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that in matters of land acquisition under special enactments, interference by the writ Court at a preliminary stage is not warranted when the aggrieved party has an effective alternative statutory remedy, and that the Court should be slow in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in such cases. This Court further observes that the issue relating to fixation of alignment of National Highways involves highly technical, economic and infrastructural considerations, which 24 fall within the domain of expert bodies such as the National Highways Authority of India. It is well-settled that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that such matters, particularly relating to highway alignment and infrastructure planning, are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review under Article 226 unless there is a clear case of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over the decisions taken by expert bodies in technical matters.

9. Petitioners have an effective and adequate statutory remedy under Section 3C of the Act to raise all objections including those relating to alignment, environmental concerns, alleged violations of guidelines, and adequacy of particulars in the notification, before the competent authority. The issues raised by Petitioners, including allegations of mala fides, improper alignment, non-compliance with guidelines and environmental norms, are mixed questions of fact and law which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present writ proceedings without a detailed factual inquiry, which is more appropriately undertaken by the statutory authority in the first instance. Entertaining the writ petition at this stage, without requiring Petitioners to avail the statutory remedy, would amount to short-circuiting the procedure prescribed under the 25 Act and bypassing the mechanism specifically designed by the legislature.

10. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that judicial discipline and settled principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction require that the Petitioners be relegated to the statutory remedy available under the Act, particularly when no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been demonstrated warranting interference at this stage. Adequacy or otherwise of the particulars mentioned in Section 3A notification, validity of alignment, and the alleged violations of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and other manuals are all matters which can be effectively raised before and considered by the competent authority under Section 3C. This Court is thus satisfied that Writ Petition, at this stage, is premature and entertaining the same would result in interference with an ongoing statutory process, which is neither warranted nor justified. Petitioners ought to have availed the said statutory remedy by submitting their objections, raising all grounds urged in the present writ petition including those relating to alignment, alleged violations of statutory provisions, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, and other contentions, before the competent authority in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to Petitioners to file appropriate objections under Section 3C of the Act within the time as may be permissible in law, and seek redressal of their grievances before the competent authority. If such objections are filed, the competent authority shall consider the same objectively, afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to Petitioners, and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by either party, and all issues are left open to be adjudicated by the competent authority. No costs.

12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 07th April 2026 ksld