1. Challenge to land acquisition notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for highway widening. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Manish Panwar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13328/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhijat P. Banerjee, Gaurav Goel, Uday Dabas
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar, Ankush Kapoor, Qurratulain, Anil Kumar Goyal, Shagun Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Pathak, K.K. Kiran Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M.S. Akhtar, Kushagra Dixit, Musarrar B Hasmi, Aman Singh, Sanjeet Kumar Patwari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhijat P. Banerjee, Gaurav Goel, Uday Dabas
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar, Ankush Kapoor, Qurratulain, Anil Kumar Goyal, Shagun Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Pathak, K.K. Kiran Pathak, Sunil Kumar Jha, M.S. Akhtar, Kushagra Dixit, Musarrar B Hasmi, Aman Singh, Sanjeet Kumar Patwari
The court held that to ensure a meaningful hearing under the National Highways Act, 1956, petitioners must be granted access to relevant records and documents to resolve ambiguities regarding the extent of land being acquired before their objections are adjudicated.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Right to meaningful hearing - Petitioners entitled to inspect records and receive necessary documents to effectively file objections under Section 3C. (Para 16, 19, 20)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Access to documents - Ambiguity regarding the extent of land acquired necessitates providing the objector with a proper opportunity to inspect the original file to ensure a fair process. (Para 16, 19)
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to further inspection of records and an additional opportunity to file objections regarding the acquisition of their land.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed non-supply of documents and ambiguity in the map; Respondents submitted the map was self-explanatory. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 16 )
3. The court found no interference necessary at this stage, as the petitioners were granted inspection and additional hearing opportunities. (Para 19 )
4. A proper and meaningful hearing under Section 3C of the Act must be afforded before objections are finally decided. (Para 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
5. The petition was disposed of with directions for inspection, further submissions, and a final hearing before the competent authority. (Para 22 )
6. At what stage should a landowner be provided with documents and a hearing under the National Highways Act?
A meaningful opportunity, including document inspection and a hearing, must be provided before the competent authority decides objections under Section 3C. (Para 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Can a court interfere at the initial stage of a land acquisition notification under the National Highways Act?
No interference is warranted if the acquisition procedure is ongoing and the landowner is being afforded proper procedural opportunities. (Para 19 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
W.P.(C) 13328/2026 & CM APPL. 61952/2026
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the impugned Notification No. S.O.2927(E) dated 8th June, 2026 (hereinafter, ‘impugned notification’) issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) by the Respondent No.1, in respect of the Peititoners’ land.
3. The background of the Petitioners’ case is that the Petitioners – Manish Panwar and Vishal Panwar, are the sons of late Shri Devender Singh, who was the son of late Shri Ranveer Singh. As per the Petitioners, Sh. Ranveer Singh is the recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 102 min, 14//13, 14//14 and 14//15, situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the subject land’). According to the Petitioners, the land has devolved upon them from the family. Various documents including a family settlement dated 10th December, 2018 are placed on record.
4. According to the Petitioners, a farm house was constructed on the said land, which was duly sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the MCD’) as far back as 21st April, 1987. In terms of the sanction, the said farm house consists of the following:
(i) Residential house admeasuring approximately 150 square yards,
(ii) Kennel admeasuring approximately 4,000 square feet with capacity to house twelve dogs
(iii) Parking shed admeasuring approximately 2,000 square feet
5. The grievance of the Petitioner in this case is that, vide the impugned notification, the National highways Authority of India (hereinafter, ‘NHAI’) seeks to acquire a part of the subject land for “building (widening/two lane with paved shoulder/four laning etc.,), maintenance, management and operation of NH 148AE in the stretch of land from Km. 0.00 to Km. 4.60 (NH 148AE near Shivmurti to Nelson Mandela Marg Section) in the district of South in the state of Delhi” (purpose).
6. The details of the land which is to be acquired vide the aforesaid impugned notification is set out below:
7. Pursuant to the impugned notification, vide Notification bearing F.No.1 (1894)SO(LA)/South/NHAI/2026/609 dated 31st August, 2026, the ADM District South, who is the competent authority, has issued a notice to the Petitioners to file objections under Section 3C of Act and the hearing was also fixed for 8th September, 2026 at 2:30 pm.
8. The submissions on behalf of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioners is as under:
(i) They have not been supplied the documents relating to the proposed acquisition.
(ii) That even on 8th September, 2026 when the hearing was fixed, relevant documents were not given, except, one map which was handed over. The said map is set out below:
(iii) The map of the village, which has been provided, is not clear as to how much of the Petitioners’ land is in fact being proposed to be acquired, and used for the public purpose.
9. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, ld. Standing Counsel for the LAC as also Ms. Qurratulain, ld. Counsel for the NHAI submit that the map is itself self-explanatory.
10. Further, ld. Counsels for the Respondents have made the following submissions:
(i) That the map sets out the exact measurements, the exact extent of the land which is being acquired, and the expansion of the National Highway has also been duly depicted in the said map.
(ii) That the objections under Section 3C of the Act have already been filed by the Petitioners.
11. On a query put by the Court, ld. Counsels for the Respondents submit that the necessary survey has been undertaken and demarcation has been carried out of the land that is to be acquired.
12. Heard the ld. Counsels for the parties. Under the National Highway Act, 1956, the Notification for intention to acquire the land is published under Section 3A of the Act, by the central government. Thereafte
