2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16869

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D Ramesh, J
Alla Sreenivasrao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 11083/2024|Writ Petition No: 11086/2024|Writ Petition No: 11090/2024|Writ Petition No: 11092/2024|Writ Petition No: 11095/2024

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 21, 226, 300-A - National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A(1), 3A(2), 3A(3), 3C(1), 3C(2), 3G - Land acquisition for National Highway - Validity of notification under Section 3A(3) - Requirement to give a 'brief description of the land' under Section 3A(2) - Publication of the 'substance' of the gazette notification in newspapers under Section 3A(3). (Paras 15, 19, 28)

(B) Land Acquisition - Notification - Provision of QR Code in newspaper publication in lieu of detailed land description does not violate Section 3A(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 - The statutory requirement under Section 3A(3) is to publish the 'substance' of the Gazette notification, which is the essence of the matter - The detailed schedule with survey numbers is included in the Gazette notification under Section 3A(1) - If the landowner can identify their land and file objections, there is no prejudice, and non-mention of specific survey numbers in the newspaper publication is not fatal. (Paras 19-20, 23, 28-29)

(C) Land Acquisition - Hearing of Objections - The procedure under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, requires the competent authority to give the objector an opportunity of being heard and to pass a reasoned order - In the present case, the objections were heard and rejected after considering the technical and financial feasibility and the decision of the Union of India, and thus, there was compliance with the principles of natural justice. (Paras 11, 17, 24)

(D) Judicial Review - Scope - In matters involving the viability and feasibility of a project and the alignment of a National Highway, the scope of judicial review is very limited - Courts are not equipped to decide technical issues and must defer to the wisdom of experts - Interference is warranted only in the rarest of rare cases, such as where the decision is ex-facie contrary to law or tainted by mala fides. (Paras 26-27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were owners of various lands in multiple villages that were proposed to be acquired for the widening/construction of National Highway No. 167-A. The first notification under Section 3A(1) was issued on 28.10.2022. After objections, a stakeholders' meeting was conducted, and an option to change the alignment was considered but rejected by the Union of India based on a technical committee's report. The initial notification lapsed, and a fresh notification under Section 3A(1) was issued on 23.02.2024, the substance of which was published in newspapers on 01.03.2024 using a QR code instead of full details. The petitioners filed objections, which were heard and rejected by the Competent Authority on 24.04.2024. The petitioners challenged the rejection and the validity of the notification for failing to provide a 'brief description' of the land.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the notification under Section 3A(3) was valid. While the Gazette notification under Section 3A(1) must contain a brief description of the land as per Section 3A(2), the newspaper publication under Section 3A(3) is only required to publish the 'substance' of that gazette. The use of a QR code, as per the guidelines of the Ministry, was not a violation of the Act, as the petitioners were able to identify their lands, access the details, and file objections. The Court also found that the objections regarding the alignment were properly considered by the authorities, who decided based on technical expertise, and thus, the matter was not one for judicial interference.

Issues: The main issues were whether the publication of a QR code in lieu of a detailed description of the land in a newspaper notification under Section 3A(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is a violation of the mandatory requirement to give a 'brief description' of the land, and whether the rejection of the petitioners' objections regarding the alignment of the highway was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory requirement for a newspaper publication under Section 3A(3) is to publish the 'substance' of the Gazette, which is the essence, not the entire schedule. If the landowner can identify their property and file objections without prejudice, the provision is substantially complied with. Furthermore, in technical matters of highway alignment, courts must defer to the expert bodies and can only interfere in rare cases of mala fides or perversity. Result : All writ petitions dismissed. Interim orders vacated.