The court held that it cannot sit in judgment over the technical/policy decisions of expert bodies like NHAI regarding highway alignment unless the decision is ex facie illegal or mala fide. The scope of judicial review is extremely limited.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3G - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to notification for acquisition of land for construction of By-pass road - Petitioners challenged necessity of By-pass, arguing existing road if freed from encroachment would be sufficient - NHAI asserted compliance with statutory procedure and that alignment was based on expert decision - Court held that once Section 3D notification is passed, land vests in Central Government and challenge to acquisition at belated stage does not arise; objections not filed within time stipulated under Section 3C(1) are not obliged to be considered in law; the court cannot sit in judgment over decision of expert bodies regarding construction of By-pass versus widening of existing National Highway; scope of judicial review very limited - Court cannot nullify acquisition unless ex facie contrary to mandate of law or tainted due to malafides. (Paras 1-43)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Limited to examining whether decision is perverse, illegal, or mala fide - Court not to sit in appeal over technical and policy decisions of expert bodies like NHAI. (Paras 40-42)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, residents of Guddemane village, challenged the preliminary and final notifications issued under the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquisition of their fertile and irrigated lands for construction of a By-pass road between Thalaguppa and Marathur. They contended that the existing Marathur-Talaguppa road, in use since 1915, was sufficient if encroachments were removed, and that the By-pass would lead to loss of irrigated land. The respondents (Union of India, NHAI, and State) argued that the By-pass was necessary to avoid two railway level crossings, sharp turns, and to facilitate smooth traffic flow, and that the statutory procedure had been followed. The Court, on an earlier date, directed the State to examine feasibility of expanding the existing highway. A detailed report by the Deputy Commissioner and Executive Engineer concluded that expansion was not feasible due to sharp curves, narrow right of way, and existence of numerous structures (including commercial, government, religious, and residential) as well as a tank bund and cemetery. The Court heard both sides.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had not filed objections within the time stipulated under Section 3C(1) of the Act, and once Section 3D notification was passed, the lands vested in the Central Government and representations made thereafter were of no relevance. The Court further held that the decision to construct a By-pass rather than widen the existing highway was a policy decision taken by an expert body (NHAI) after considering all technical factors, and the court could not sit in judgment over such decisions. The Court cited the principle from Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and Others that the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court also noted that the Deputy Commissioner's report clearly demonstrated the non-feasibility of widening the existing road due to sharp turns, presence of a tank, cemetery, and numerous structures. The Court found no illegality or mala fides.

Issues: 1. Whether the challenge to the necessity of the By-pass could be sustained after the Section 3D notification. 2. Whether the court could interfere with the expert decision of NHAI regarding the alignment and construction of a By-pass.

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi is that once the statutory procedure under the National Highways Act, 1956 is complied with and a Section 3D notification is issued, lands vest in the Central Government. The court's power of judicial review over the necessity and alignment of a highway project is extremely limited. The court cannot sit in appeal over the technical and policy decisions of expert bodies like NHAI unless the decision is ex facie contrary to law or tainted by mala fides. Objections not filed within the prescribed time are not liable to be considered.

Result: The writ petitions were dismissed.

Table of Content
1. common order for connected petitions (Para 1)
2. petitioners' challenge to nh bypass acquisition (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. nhai's justification for bypass and rob (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court order for feasibility report on widening (Para 15 , 16)
5. timeliness of objections under nh act (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. technical feasibility report justifying bypass (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. limited judicial review of expert decisions (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
8. writ petitions dismissed (Para 43)

CAV ORDER

In light of the petitioners in both the petitions challenging the validity of the same preliminary and final notification with identical grievances, both the petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

2. The petitioners are residents of the village Guddemane. It is asserted that the village of the petitioners is connected to the Bangalore-Honnavara Road through the Marathur-Talaguppa road which is stated to have been in use for the past eight to nine decades.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that their lands have benefit of irrigation facilities and are near water canal which feeds water from the Gowri Kere. It is submitted that the proposal of the respondent National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to form a By-pass and thereby abandoning the earlier Marathur-Talaguppa road and such formation of By-pass would involve acquisition of fertile and irrigated lands of the petitioners is sought to be challenged.

4. It is asserted by the petitioners that the existing Marathur-Talaguppa road serves the purpose of connectivity and no case is made out for laying of the By-pass road.

5. It is further submitted that Marathur to Talaguppa road has been in use since 1915 and was upgraded to a State Highway in 1977 and subsequently upgraded to a National Highway in 1999. It is specifically contended that illegal constructions encroaching the right of way have been put up in 2019 and if such illegal encroachments are removed, the width of the existing road would be sufficient and there would be no need to consider construction of a new By-pass.

6. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) have filed their Statement of Objections and have specifically contended that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) after deliberation with the Ministry of Railways has taken a decision to replace all level crossings with Road over Bridge (ROB). It is asserted that there is existing level crossing No.152 (Talaguppa) at Kilometer 73.250 on NH-69 (Old NH-206 Honnavara-Chithur Section). It is submitted that the Road over Bridge is proposed to facilitate smooth and fast traffic flow and reduce the possibility of accidents.

7. It is further submitted that Option-I of the Alignment has been selected and preceded by technical and administrative sanction.

8. It is further asserted that procedure stipulated under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') has been strictly adhered to as contemplated under Section 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D.

9. The public hearing inviting objections were held on 11.01.2024 and 20.01.2021 and no objections were received during the relevant point of time. It is specifically asserted that out of the beneficiaries numbering 87 at Talaguppa and 54 at Marathur, only 20 of them have filed the writ petition and none of them have filed objections within the time stipulated.

10. It is also asserted that once Section 3D notification is passed, land is vested with the Central Government and challenge to land acquisition at this belated point of time does not arise.

11. It is also asserted that the demand for exploring alternative reliefs was also resorted to and the Deputy Commissioner has furnished a detailed report after carrying out inspections and has opined that it is appropriate to implement the Project as per alignment approved by the Central Government and reliance is placed on the report at Ann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27070

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.SUNIL DUTT YADAVSRI GANAPATHI – AppellantVersusTHE UNION OF INDIA – RespondentWP 13078/2025

The court held that it cannot sit in judgment over the technical/policy decisions of expert bodies like NHAI regarding highway alignment unless the decision is ex facie illegal or mala fide. The scope of judicial review is extremely limited.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
SRI GANAPATHI – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 13078/2025