2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20432
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA(NHAI) – Appellant
Versus
PASUPULETI SATYA SEETHA RAM – Respondent
WA 821/2025
A notification under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act cannot be used to reduce the extent of land acquired under a Section 3D notification, and compensation must be determined based on the Section 3D notification.
Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A, 3D, and 3G - Acquisition of land for National Highway - Power to acquire land - Declaration of acquisition - Determination of amount payable as compensation - Reduction of land extent after Section 3D notification - Vesting of land under Section 3D(2) is absolute and irreversible - A notification under Section 3G(3) cannot be used to reduce the extent of land to be acquired; it is only for inviting claims for compensation - Compensation must be determined based on the land extent specified in the Section 3D notification, regardless of any subsequent reduction under Section 3G(3). (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant had issued a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, on 21.05.2018 for acquiring certain land for a flyover project. This was followed by a notification under Section 3D on 26.08.2018, which declared the acquisition of the same land. Later, the appellant decided to reduce the Right of Way (ROW) from 60 meters to 40 meters and issued a notification under Section 3G(3) on 13.06.2023 to reduce the extent of land to be acquired. An award was passed on 11.08.2023 based on this reduced extent. The respondents challenged the 13.06.2023 notification. The learned Single Judge, relying on a Division Bench judgment in a connected matter, disposed of the writ petition. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that under the scheme of the Act, a Section 3D notification results in the absolute vesting of the land in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances, and this vesting cannot be reversed. Compensation must be determined based on the extent of land specified in the Section 3D notification. A notification under Section 3G(3) is merely a procedural step to invite claims for compensation and cannot be used to alter or reduce the land already notified under Section 3D.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant could reduce the extent of land to be acquired after a Section 3D notification, and whether a notification under Section 3G(3) could be used for such a reduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once a Section 3D notification is published, the land vests absolutely in the government. There is no provision to reverse this vesting. A Section 3G(3) notice is only for calling claims for compensation and cannot be used to modify the acquisition. Any variation in the Section 3G(3) notice from the Section 3D notification does not absolve the authority from determining compensation based on the Section 3D notification.
Result: The writ appeal was disposed of with directions that supplementary awards be passed for compensation for the entire land notified under Section 3D, and the alignment of the land be demarcated to ensure that land outside the Section 3D alignment is not taken without fresh acquisition proceedings. (Note: A specific objection regarding a difference in land alignment was raised but was not considered because it was not raised earlier. The court, however, provided directions to address this issue upon remand.) (A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A, 3D, and 3G - Acquisition of land for National Highway - Power to acquire land - Declaration of acquisition - Determination of amount payable as compensation - Reduction of land extent after Section 3D notification - Vesting of land under Section 3D(2) is absolute and irreversible - A notification under Section 3G(3) cannot be used to reduce the extent of land to be acquired; it is only for inviting claims for compensation - Compensation must be determined based on the land extent specified in the Section 3D notification, regardless of any subsequent reduction under Section 3G(3). (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant had issued a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, on 21.05.2018 for acquiring certain land for a flyover project. This was followed by a notification under Section 3D on 26.08.2018, which declared the acquisition of the same land. Later, the appellant decided to reduce the Right of Way (ROW) from 60 meters to 40 meters and issued a notification under Section 3G(3) on 13.06.2023 to reduce the extent of land to be acquired. An award was passed on 11.08.2023 based on this reduced extent. The respondents challenged the 13.06.2023 notification. The learned Single Judge, relying on a Division Bench judgment in a connected matter, disposed of the writ petition. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that under the scheme of the Act, a Section 3D notification results in the absolute vesting of the land in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances, and this vesting cannot be reversed. Compensation must be determined based on the extent of land specified in the Section 3D notification. A notification under Section 3G(3) is merely a procedural step to invite claims for compensation and cannot be used to alter or reduce the land already notified under Section 3D.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant could reduce the extent of land to be acquired after a Section 3D notification, and whether a notification under Section 3G(3) could be used for such a reduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once a Section 3D notification is published, the land vests absolutely in the government. There is no provision to reverse this vesting. A Section 3G(3) notice is only for calling claims for compensation and cannot be used to modify the acquisition. Any variation in the Section 3G(3) notice from the Section 3D notification does not absolve the authority from determining compensation based on the Section 3D notification.
Result: The writ appeal was disposed of with directions that supplementary awards be passed for compensation for the entire land notified under Section 3D, and the alignment of the land be demarcated to ensure that land outside the Section 3D alignment is not taken without fresh acquisition proceedings.
(B) Appeal - Appellate court should not interfere with a lower court's order simply because another view is possible; an order should only be interfered with if it is perverse, illegal, or compromised beyond redemption. (Paras 9.1 and 9.2 of example, not directly quoted in this judgment)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notification under section 3a and 3d of the nh act for land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prior judgments and pending slp on the issue of land extent reduction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. parties' arguments on the validity of reducing land extent via section 3g(3). (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. compensation must be based on the section 3d notification extent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. directions for supplementary awards and alignment demarcation. (Para 12 , 13) |
The Court made the following judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
A Notification, under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the NH Act”), for acquisition of land belonging to the respondents herein, for the purpose of construction of a flyover on National Highway No.16/216A, in Tetali Village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District was issued on 21.05.2018. The total extent of land that was proposed to be acquired, from the respondents was set out in the said notification. Thereafter, a notification was issued under Section 3D of the NH Act, on 26.08.2018 confirming that the extent of land mentioned in the 3A notification, dated 21.05.2018 was acquired.
2. At that stage, the appellant, which is the National Highway authority, took a decision to reduce ROW (Right of way) of 60 meters which was originally proposed to a ROW of 40 meters. On this basis, the appellant issued a notification under 3G(3) of the NH Act, on 13.06.2023 for reducing the extent of land that is sought to be acquired. Aggrieved by the said notification, dated 13.06.2023, the respondents approached this Court, by way W.P.No.25901 of 2023. During the pendency of this writ petition, an Award, dated 11.08.2023 had also been passed in relation to the acquisition of land set out in the notification under Section 3G(3), dated 13.06.2023.
3. It was represented before the learned Single Judge when the matter came up for hearing, that the issue before the learned Single Judge was already covered by a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.34565 of 2022, dated 21.09.2023 which had been modified by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 22.08.2024 in W.A.No.1001 of 2023 and W.A.No.135 of 2024. The learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 26.03.2025, had disposed of the W.P.No.25901 of 2023 in terms of the said judgments.
4. The issue before the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.34565 of 2022, was whether the appellant, after having notified an extent of land in the notification issued under Section 3A of the NH Act, could reduce the said extent by a notification under Section 3D and whether the 3D notification could be affirmed by a subsequent notification under Section 3G(3) of the NH Act. The other issue which came up before the learned Single Judge, was the quantum of compensation that was required to be paid for the lands specified in 3A or 3D notifications. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the compensation would have to be paid on the basis of the land notified under Section 3A of the NH Act. In the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court, had held that the compensation would have to be on the extent of land notified under Section 3D of the NH Act. It appears that the landholders, in that case had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) Diary No.5329 of 2025 and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25901 of 2023, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ appeal.
6. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the appellant would be entitled to reduce the extent of land which has to be acquired, by way of modifying extent of land notified in the notification issued under Section 3A and 3D by way of a notification under Section 3G (3) of the NH Act. The learned Senior counsel would also contend that this issue is already pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
