When a specialized statutory mechanism for determining compensation and resolving disputes exists, writ courts should not intervene in infrastructure projects of national importance unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights, jurisdictional error, or proven mala fides.

ORDER:

The petitioners state that the authorities began land acquisition by issuing a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH Act”) on 10.03.2021, published in the Gazette and newspapers on 25.03.2021, for acquiring lands in about ten villages in Parkal, Shayampet, and Damera Mandals for a four-lane Greenfield National Highway. They contend that the notification mentioned only survey numbers and land extents, without landowner details, maps, or plans at the CALA office. No Grama Sabha was held, and publication in “Mana Telangana” and “The Hindu” had little reach in their village. Being small farmers, they claim they were denied a meaningful opportunity to file proper objections, though some common objections were submitted.

A public hearing for environmental clearance was later conducted where objections were recorded. After that, there was no communication for nearly a year until a public notice dated 04.02.2023 under Section 3G of the NH Act was published on 15.02.2023, asking landowners to submit compensation claims. The petitioners state that only through this notice did they learn about the Section 3D declaration dated 08.03.2022. They submitted representations alleging illegalities and seeking to stop further action.

Some landowners from Damera Mandal challenged the notifications in W.P. No. 5187 of 2023, claiming they were issued before environmental clearance. This Court granted interim stay for over six months but later dismissed the case in October 2023 after clearance was obtained. A writ appeal is said to be pending. After dismissal, the authorities continued the process and issued further Section 3G notices and awards.

The petitioners state that additional Section 3A and 3D notifications were later uploaded on the NHAI website covering further lands, including theirs. They claim they were not individually informed and learned of these only by chance. When Section 3E possession notices were issued without supplying award copies, some landowners filed W.P. No. 10431 of 2024 challenging the notifications and notices. On 03.05.2024, this Court granted interim protection from dispossession, which is still in force. Believing their lands were similarly covered, the petitioners did not approach the Court immediately. They state that copies of the awards were given to them only in February 2025 after repeated requests.

The petitioners allege that from June–July 2025, officials with police entered their lands, warned them not to cultivate, and pressured them to accept compensation before Dusshera, failing which amounts would be deposited in Court and possession taken. They claim their objections were never properly decided and that the disposal order dated 20.11.2021 was non-speaking.

They argue that the multiple Section 3A notifications dated 10.03.2021 and 08.05.2022 contained incomplete and incorrect details, violating Section 3A(2) and principles of natural justice. They contend that the Section 3D notification dated 08.03.2022 was based on an invalid report. They further argue that compensation should be governed by the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as applied through the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015, and not merely by Section 3G of the NH Act. They claim market value was not revised properly before the 3A notification, leading to unfair compensation and discrimination due to different rates applied in January 2024 awards. They also state that compensation for structures and trees was not determined at that time.

The petitioners dispute the respondents’ claim that valid awards were passed and that possession can be taken under Section 3E. They argue that possession cannot be taken without full and proper determination and payment of compensation, including for structures, trees, and rehabilitation benefits.

In summary, the petitioners allege procedural illegality, improper consideration of objections, discriminatory compensation, and violation of statutory provisions under the NH Act and the