Public interest in land acquisition for national highway construction can outweigh individual objections related to procedural inadequacies when substantial work has progressed.

JUDGMENT :

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

1. The writ petition filed challenging the notification under section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 [for short the “N.H. Act”] came to be disposed of by virtue of the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.100581/2024 c/w W.A.No. 100584/2024. The Division Bench took note of the passing of the final notification under Section 3D of the N.H. Act and observed that the grievance of the petitioners could not be considered in light of the subsequent events and further liberty was reserved to file a writ petition challenging the final notification issued under Section 3D of the N.H. Act. While W.A.No.100581/2024 was disposed of in terms of the above observation, W.A.No.100584/2024 was disposed of with an observation that the acquisition itself had lapsed as though preliminary notification was issued on 09.03.2023, no final notification had been issued within one year and accordingly, the acquisition had lapsed.

2. Thereafter the appellants herein filed W.P.No.100328/2025 which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.02.2025. Accordingly, the present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition in terms of the following:

"i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.

ii) Respondent No.3 - SLAO and respondent No.7 Assistant Director of Land Records are directed to mark out the area of the land of the petitioners which are going to be utilized in terms of the acquisition notification in CTS No.2960, 2961, 2989, 2990, 2991 and 2995 within one week from today, that is, on or before 4.03.2025. The petitioner is granted a week's time thereafter to file any additional statement of objections in respect of the marked area alone to indicate any special circumstances as to why that land is not required to be acquired which shall be submitted on or before 11.03.2025 to the SLAO for consideration in passing of necessary orders."

3. The observation of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.100328/2025 are as follows:

a. Reference to the contentions of the petitioners:

i. Though the properties of the petitioners are found in the notification, however, the extent and boundaries of the land are absent and only the extent of the land is mentioned.

ii. Even under Section 3D notification, extent of land in hectares is mentioned and accordingly the petitioners could not file their objections to the acquisition notification.

iii. That the assertion of the National Highway Authority of India [for short “NHAI”] that as on 21.09.2023 when order was passed in W.P.No.4352/2022, 43.55% of physical progress had been made, was a factually incorrect statement.

b. Reference to contentions of the respondent:

i. The details of the properties mentioned under the Section 3A and 3D notifications are sufficient enough to enable the petitioners to consider and submit reply.

ii. Insofar as the extent of work that has been carried out, majority of the work was completed on Government property on existing roads and not on the acquired properties under the N.H. Act.

c. Findings by the learned Single Judge:

i. As the extent of land sought to be acquired being very small, it would not be capable of mentioning the exact boundaries, including the width and length.

ii. The approximate extent of land acquired as indicated in the notification would be sufficient.

iii. The decision in the Shamrao’s case as relied upon by the petitioners would not be applicable as all