SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11390

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA


WRIT PETITION No. 25680 of 2023


07th April, 2026


Between:

1. Maduri Thirupathi, and others

… Petitioners

AND

1. The State of Telangana, and others

… Respondents

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

Acquisition disputes for National Highway projects are governed by the special mechanism under the National Highways Act, 1956; consequently, landholders must exhaust the statutory arbitration remedy under Section 3G(5) before approaching the High Court under Article 226.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A, 3G(5), 3J - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) - Sections 26, 30, 31, 105, 106 - Acquisition of land for highway expansion - Claim for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the 2013 Act - Whether R&R provisions apply to highway projects acquired under the 1956 Act - Court held that the National Highways Act is a special enactment with an inbuilt adjudicatory mechanism - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act - Petitioners relegated to available remedy under 1956 Act and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(B) Writ Petition - Maintainability - Existence of efficacious alternative remedy - Court held that unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or jurisdictional error, the High Court should not bypass statutory remedies in projects involving large public interest. (Paras 16, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners agricultural lands and homes were acquired for the National Highway-563 expansion. While compensation was paid under the 2013 Act framework, the petitioners sought additional Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits, which were denied by the authorities citing the nature of the project as linear and non-displacement oriented.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act for enhancement of compensation and disputes regarding entitlements. It held that the writ petition cannot be entertained when a established arbitration mechanism exists.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the 2013 Act for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, and whether the writ petition is maintainable despite an alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The National Highways Act, 1956 is a self-contained code. Disputes over compensation and resettlement are best addressed by the designated Arbitrator and subsequently under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Resorting to Article 226 for such disputes, in the absence of fundamental rights violations, would cause unwarranted project delays contrary to public interest.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of and petitioners relegated to statutory arbitration.

ORDER:

The case of the petitioners, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that acquisition proceedings were initiated by the authorities for the National Highway expansion project, which affected the petitioners’ agricultural lands and residential houses. The petitioners contend that they belong to economically weaker sections with marginal landholdings and dependent on agriculture, traditional occupations, and daily wage labor, and their lands were subjected to acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Act. According to the petitioners, the authorities proceeded without strictly adhering to due process and passed compensation awards for land and structures. Dissatisfied with the compensation amounts, the petitioners filed arbitration applications before the District Collector, which remain pending, and accepted the compensation under protest.

1.1 The petitioners contend that, in addition to compensation under the First Schedule of Act 30 of 2013, they are legally entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits the Second Schedule and infrastructural support under the Third Schedule, by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, which extends such benefits to acquisitions under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, including the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Act. The petitioners state that this legal position was acknowledged even in the award proceedings themselves. Acting on this understanding, the petitioners made representations to the authorities requesting extension of R&R benefits. However, the District Collector, through Memo No. G1/2210/2018 dated 15.05.2023, communicated that the Project Director of NHAI had clarified that the R&R provisions of Act 30 of 2013 are not applicable to the petitioners, and therefore no such entitlements would be granted. The petitioners contend that refusing R&R benefits to them is contrary to law.

1.2 The petitioners further allege that the respondent authorities failed to respond meaningfully to their representations and neglected their statutory duties with a lack of diligence, forcing the petitioners to approach the Court, thereby incurring additional financial burden. The petitionersassert that the authorities are proceeding to dispossess them on the ground that compensation has already been awarded and paid. The petitioners contend that this action is illegal as it would render them homeless and cause irreparable injury as no R&R benefits were granted.The petitioners contend that the authorities are under a clear legal obligation to extend full R&R benefits, and their failure violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 4threspondent-Project Director, NHAI, essentially contending that the petitioners have already been granted all legally admissible compensation and that their claim for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable. It is contended that the land acquisition proceedings for the Karimnagar–Warangal section of National Highway-563 were conducted by the competent authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hanumakonda, in accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956. The required land was duly surveyed by the Revenue and Survey Department, following which a notification under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act was issued and published in the Gazette. After completing all statutory procedures and granting adequate opportunity of hearing to affected parties, the competent authority passed the land acquisition award bearing No. GI/F/1400-3/2020 dated 10.01.2022. This award included compensation for land as well as structures, along with all statut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top