SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
Mullapudi Yamini Pushkarini and Others - Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10280 of 2022
Decided On : 20-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.R.K. Chakravarthy
For the Respondent: Chaudary and Chaudary

The court affirmed that the declaration of a road as a national highway is not a prerequisite for land acquisition under the National Highways Act, emphasizing public interest in infrastructure development.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 3A, 3C, 3D, 3G; Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Land acquisition for construction of a highway - Petitioners challenged notifications and awards issued for the acquisition of lands for a national highway, asserting improper process and lack of proper notices. Court found that issuance of notification under section 3A does not require prior declaration of a road as a national highway, thereby upholding the authority's actions. (Paras 8-20)

(B) Public Interest - In matters of public projects, the courts should prioritize public interest over individual claims, and challenges should not obstruct national projects vital for economic development. (Paras 18-19)

(C) Judicial Review - Courts possess limited scope in reviewing decisions related to technical matters, emphasizing deference to the expertise of authorities involved in project implementation. (Paras 8, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
Landowners contested the acquisition proceedings for lands in specific villages for the construction of a highway, alleging procedural failings and improper notifications. They contended that the land conversion was valid prior to the section 3A notification.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the notifications under the NH Act were valid and reaffirmed that public interest prevails in this context, allowing the highway project to proceed.

Issues: Whether the highway project constitutes a national highway project and the legitimacy of acquisition procedures followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prior notification of a road as a national highway is not required for section 3A applicability, and emphasized the prioritization of public interest in such infrastructure projects.

Result: Petition dismissed, allowing proceedings to continue.

Table of Content
1. land acquisition for public purpose. (Para 1 , 4)
2. arguments regarding public purpose and deceit in acquisition process. (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. procedures and provisions of nh act relevant to the case. (Para 8 , 12)
4. public interest vs private interest in land acquisition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 19)
5. conclusion on validity of acquisition proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER :

1. The land owners, whose lands have come under acquisition for construction of a four-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway by National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) from Khammam-Devarapalli are before this Court.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The present petition is filed challenging the Notifications, Award Enquiry Notices, Award, Award Notices issued under the National Highways Act, 1956, EIA Notification, 2006 viz., (i) SO.No. 1388 (E) published in Gazette No.1240 dated 27.04.2020 and under section 3A of the NH Act, 1956 published in Hans India, Andhra Jyothi daily News Papers dated 08.05.2020 (ii) S.O.No.4189(E), MORT & H dated 23.11.2020 published in Gazette No.3687 under section 3D of the NH Act, (iii) Public Notice Rc.No.1/2020/CALA&JC/NHAI/365BG, dated 08.08.2020 under section 3(G)(3) of the NH Act; (iv) Award Enquiry Notices vide ROC No.1/NH-365 BG/2020 dated 20.01.2020 and 23.01.2021; (v) Award Nos.6/2021/NH-365BG, 7/2021/NH-365 BG, dated 15.03.2021 of the 6th Respondent under section 23 of RFCTLRR Act r/w section 3G of the NH Act; (vi) Award Notices issued vide Roc.No.01/2020/NH-365 BG dated 17.07.2021 under section 3H(2) of the NH Act, 1956 and section 26 of RFCTLRR Act; (vii) Proceedings in File No.10-51/2020-IA.III, dated 23.12.2021.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are the owners of the lands in Rajavaram, Iduvadalapalem, Kannayagudem Villages, Koyyalagudem Mandal of West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

The said revenue lands were sought to be acquired for public purpose of constructing Khammam-Devarapalli four-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway by Respondents (NHAI).

It is the case of the Petitioners that they have paid conversion tax as regulated under Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (APLA Act) and that the same has been intimated to Revenue Divisional Officer. The Petitioners contend that the land stood converted on payment of conversion tax by the date of Sec.3A Notification by virtue of Section 3 of APLA Act. However, W.P.No.1377 of 2019 pertaining to conversion of the said lands to non-agricultural lands is pending before this Hon‟ble Court.

It is also contented by the Petitioners that initially in the year 2018, the Respondents have issued Notification and Awards similar to the impugned Proceedings and on receiving objections dated 05.11.2018 from the Petitioners that the alleged road is not a National Highway published under NH Act and therefore the provisions of NH Act cannot be invoked, the Respondent authorities dropped the acquisition proceedings and that after a lapse of two years, fresh notifications have been issued which are impugned in the case on hand.

It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for Petitioners that there is no declaration by the Union of India (1st Respondent) in the Gazette that the proposed road is a National Highway as mandated under Section 2(2) of the NH Act and therefore the NH Act does not apply and that the entire impugned Proceedings of acquisition, Notification and Awards are ultra vires liable to be set aside. It is also argued by the learned counsel for Petitioners that it is nothing but colourable exercise of power just to escape the rigors of RFCTLRR Act.

The learned counsel for Petitioners further stated that the Petitioners have raised objections under Section 3C dated 15.05.2020 and that they have also filed claim statements in the office of the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition (6t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top