Where a specialized statute provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolving compensation disputes, writ courts should not bypass such statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist, especially when the subject matter involves essential public infrastructure projects.

ORDER:

1. The petitioner, Kalva Murali Manohar Reddy, a 72-year-old agriculturist, approaches the Court seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the actions of the respondent authorities as illegal and unconstitutional, particularly their attempt to take possession of his agricultural land measuring 11,481 sq. meters and an additional extent of approximately 508.237 sq. meters (elsewhere described as 574.138 sq. meters) in Survey No. 497 of Nawabpet village, Chityal mandal. He challenges the validity of the impugned award modification proceedings bearing No. J/69/2021-NH-163-G dated September 5, 2024, which for the first time inserted his name in relation to the subject land without prior statutory steps such as notification under Section 3A, declaration under Section 3D, or notice of award enquiry under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order dated August 28, 2015. He contends that if these actions are not set aside, he will be deprived of his land, livelihood, and property in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, and therefore seeks both final relief quashing the proceedings and interim protection against dispossession.

The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he owns a total extent of Ac.08-35 guntas of agricultural land in Nawabpet village, comprising Ac.06.07 guntas of ancestral land and Ac.02.28 guntas of self-acquired land in Survey No. 497/1/2 and 497/1/2/1, for which a pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in 2019. Although he resides in Hanumakonda due to age and medical needs, he continues to supervise cultivation. It is stated that, in the first week of April 2021, he learned from fellow villagers about a proposed greenfield road. He subsequently became aware of a Section 3A notification published on 25.03.2021, which vaguely referred to acquisition of part of Survey No. 497, covering roughly 10 acres, without specifying pattadar names or sub-divisions. Due to this lack of clarity, and after being informed by local officials that exact details would emerge only after further survey and declaration, he did not file objections under Section 3C.

1.1. A declaration under Section 3D was later issued in 2022, though the petitioner states he remained unaware of it at the time. It was only in 2023, when award enquiry notices were issued to other farmers, that he discovered the ongoing acquisition process. It is stated that he was not served any notice concerning Survey No. 497. Upon obtaining documents, he found that while three pattadars were listed against Survey No. 497, his name was absent; instead, his name was erroneously shown against Survey No. 473 for an extent of 3,237 sq. meters, despite his having no land there. He further learned that awards had already been passed in January 2024, specifically on 16.01.2024 and 09.03.2024, without affording him any opportunity to participate in the enquiry or present objections. Subsequently, sometime in 2024, a survey team entered his land in his absence and made markings without prior notice, and upon enquiry he was told that alignment changes were being made.

1.2. The petitioner recounts that despite requesting documents from the office of the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), none were furnished; however, he secured co