Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11386

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Bollu Sammi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 26406 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ch. Ravi Kumar
For the Respondents: Standing Counsel for NHAI, Standing Counsel for CALA, B. Narasimha Sarma

High Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to stall national infrastructure projects when an efficacious statutory remedy—specifically arbitration under the National Highways Act followed by challenges under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act—is available to address grievances regarding compensation and procedural disputes.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3G and 3H - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 16-18, 21-30, 31, First, Second and Third Schedules - Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Land acquisition for linear infrastructure project - Challenge to notification, declaration, and compensation award - Existence of alternative statutory remedy - Scope of judicial review in public utility projects. (Paras 1, 12, 13, 15, 16)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of extraordinary powers - When permissible - Availability of efficacious alternative remedy under special enactment - The court will not normally exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an effective and efficacious remedy is available, unless there are exceptional circumstances involving violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or jurisdictional error. (Paras 17, 18, 21)

(C) Judicial Review - Policy decision regarding infrastructure projects - Expert body expertise - Courts are not equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of project alignment; scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited and restricted to cases where action is contrary to law or mala fide. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, agricultural landowners, challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated for the construction of a four-lane greenfield highway. They alleged procedural irregularities, including inadequate notice, failure to consider objections properly, lack of environmental clearance before declaration, incomplete compensation awards regarding structures and trees, and denial of rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the 2013 Act. Respondents maintained that all statutory procedures under the National Highways Act were followed, that compensation was determined and deposited as per law, and that petitioners, not being displaced, were not entitled to rehabilitation benefits beyond provided compensation.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the land acquisition for a public infrastructure project of this nature cannot be stalled indefinitely. The grievance regarding compensation is pecuniary and justiciable through the statutory framework. The court held that the legislature has provided an inbuilt adjudicatory mechanism, including an arbitration process and subsequent challenge before a civil court.

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the National Highways Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; whether the court should interfere with the acquisition and compensation determination for a project of national importance.

Ratio Decidendi: Since the National Highways Act provides a complete adjudicatory mechanism for compensation grievances under Section 3G(5) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and because there was no demonstrated violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, or jurisdictional error, the court should not bypass these statutory remedies to entertain a writ petition. Judicial restraint is warranted regarding infrastructure projects where expert evaluation is involved.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with liberty to avail statutory remedies; interim orders vacated.

Table of Content
1. alleged procedural irregularities and non-compliance with land acquisition norms. (Para 1)
2. justification of acquisition procedures and compensation under the national highways act. (Para 2 , 3)
3. petitioners' rejoinder on partial awards and lack of rehabilitation schemes. (Para 4)
4. precedents regarding land acquisition rights and statutory compensation compliance. (Para 6 , 7)
5. respondents' reliance on specialized arbitration remedies and public infrastructure priority. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. court's refusal to interfere due to existence of statutory arbitration remedies. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

ORDER:

The case of the petitioners, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that they are small and marginal farmers whose primary livelihood comes from cultivating their agricultural lands in Oorugonda village. The subject lands are also highly valuable due to their proximity to developing urban infrastructure such as the Warangal outer ring road and existing highways. A preliminary acquisition notification was issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act through Gazette Notification No. 1102(E) dated 10.03.2021, which was published in newspapers on 25.03.2021. This notification proposed acquisition of lands in approximately ten villages across the Parkal, Shayampet, and Damera mandals for constructing a four-lane greenfield highway forming part of the NH-163G project, covering the stretch from Km 88.418 to Km 111.762 within the then Warangal (Rural) District, later renamed Hanumakonda District. The petitioner states that the notification failed to provide landowner-wise details and instead merely listed survey numbers and extents without adequate descriptions, maps, or plans. As a result, affected landowners lacked the information necessary to determine the precise extent of acquisition affecting their individual holdings and were thereby prevented from filing meaningful objections. The petitioner further claims that the authorities did not make maps available at the office of the competent authority as indicated in the notification, nor did they conduct any Gram Sabha meetings or other local consultations to inform affected residents. Despite this lack of information, some affected landowners—including some of the petitioners—submitted common objections to the authorities.

1.1. During the same period, an environmental impact assessment process was undertaken, and a public hearing was held in which many affected villagers recorded objections to the project. After that hearing, the petitioner states that the landowners received no further communication for nearly a year. They subsequently became aware of a public notice dated 04.02.2023, published in newspapers on 15.02.2023, issued under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, requiring them to appear before the competent authority on various dates between 23.02.2023 and 09.03.2023 to present their compensation claims. According to the petitioners, it was only through this notice that they learned of the issuance of a declaration under Section 3D via Gazette Notification No. 1017 dated 08.03.2022, confirming the acquisition of their lands. The petitioners asserts that this declaration had never been properly published in local newspapers or circulated within the affected locality, and that affected landowners therefore lacked timely knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.

Following this discovery, the landowners submitted representations to the authorities demanding that the process be halted and pointing out alleged procedural irregularities.

1.2. In response to these developments, certain affected persons from several villages in Damera Mandal—including residents of Oorugonda—approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 5187 of 2023, challenging the validity of the Section 3D declaration and the compensation inquiry notice under Section 3G. Their challenge was based on the allegation that these steps had bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11386

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNagesh Bheemapaka, JBollu Sammi Reddy – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentWRIT PETITION No. 26406 of 2025

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Bollu Sammi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 26406 of 2025