The High Court will not grant relief in land acquisition matters for national infrastructure projects where a specific statutory arbitration mechanism exists to resolve disputes over compensation, provided there is no manifest illegality or violation of natural justice in the acquisition process.

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, precisely, as per the writ affidavit is that the initial land acquisition notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, published in Gazette No.1102(E) dated 10.03.2021 and subsequently published in newspapers on 25.03.2021. This notification proposed the acquisition of lands across approximately ten villages in Parkal, Shayampet, and Damera mandals, including portions of the petitioner’s land, for construction of a new four-lane green highway. The petitioner asserts that the notification lacked adequate landowner-wise details and merely specified survey numbers and extents, making it difficult for affected persons to clearly identify their holdings. He further states that the notification claimed maps and plans were available with the competent authority, but in reality no such documents were accessible. Believing the project unnecessary given the existence of nearby National and State Highways that were allegedly underutilized, the petitioner and other affected farmers submitted general objections to the authorities. During the environmental impact assessment stage, a public hearing was conducted in which several landowners, including affected persons from the region, raised objections to the project.

1.1. For nearly a year thereafter, the petitioner claims there was no communication regarding the progress of the acquisition or environmental clearance. The situation changed when a public notice dated 04.02.2023 was issued under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, and published in newspapers on 15.02.2023, directing landowners to appear before the competent authority on various dates between 23.02.2023 and 09.03.2023 to submit their compensation claims. Through this notice, the petitioner states he first learned that a declaration under Section 3D had already been issued through Gazette No.1017 dated 08.03.2022, which effectively finalized the acquisition of the land. He asserts that this declaration was neither published locally nor circulated in newspapers with local readership, thereby depriving affected landowners of proper notice. In response, the petitioner and others submitted representations to the authorities requesting that the acquisition process be halted.

1.2. Subsequently, the petitioner and several other affected landowners approached this Court by filing W.P. No.5187 of 2023, challenging both the Section 3D declaration dated 08.03.2022 and the Section 3G award enquiry notice dated 04.02.2023. Their principal contention was that the acquisition process had advanced prior to obtaining environmental clearance, which they argued was impermissible under law. This Court initially granted stay of further proceedings for more than six months, but during the pendency of the writ petition the environmental clearance was obtained. As a result, the Court dismissed the petition in October 2023. The petitioner and others then filed Writ Appeal No.1190 of 2023, which was admitted and remains pending adjudication. The petitioner asserts that after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition and during the pendency of the writ appeal, the authorities resumed the acquisition process and proceeded to issue further notices and awards under Section 3G.

1.3. It is stated that in April 2024, several other landowners from Oorugonda village filed W.P. No.9909 of 2024, challenging multiple acquisition notifications including Section 3A notifications S.O.