A challenge to a preliminary notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act is premature if the party has not exhausted the statutory remedy of filing objections under Section 3C, which is the appropriate forum for determining technical and factual grievances.

O R D E R:

Petitioners contend that the Union Government has proposed a Greenfield Highway project from Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra to Amaravathi in the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2019 and the said Highway, while proceeding towards Vijayawada, is proposed to pass through Khammam Municipal Corporation area, including V. Venkatayapalem village and adjoining regions. Though respondents claim to have considered three alternative alignments, the impugned alignment, namely Option-1, which is closest to Khammam city, has been selected arbitrarily, despite the existence of alternative alignments to the East and extreme East, and the selected alignment intersects the 100 feet Wyra Road, which is a major State Highway and a principal road within Khammam city, passing through highly commercial areas, Government offices and educational institutions. The successive Gazette Notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021, S.O. 3563(E) dated 29.07.2022 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024, were issued without complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the brief particulars of lands to be acquired, their extent and ownership details were not furnished, thereby rendering the notifications illegal and depriving the land losers of their right to raise effective objections.

1.1. Petitioners further contend that the impugned notification is the third in succession and that repeated issuance of such notifications, without curing defects and without adhering to statutory requirements, is impermissible in law, particularly when earlier notifications have lapsed by efflux of time. The land-losers in and around Khammam have been agitating against the impugned alignment, and the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, had categorically requested for change of alignment, pointing out various factual and developmental aspects on ground. The State Government had already planned a ring road for Khammam city pursuant to G.O. Rt. No. 182 dated 18.04.2016 issued by the Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, and had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 208 Crores for land acquisition, and accordingly had acquired land in 2018 by paying compensation of Rs. 1 crore per acre for construction of the Integrated District Collectorate.

1.2. Petitioners also contend that due to such developments, the lands surrounding the Collectorate have become highly commercial, and several residential colonies, schools and colleges have come up within a 10 Km stretch of the Khammam ring road, and despite such significant developments, the respondents have fixed the impugned alignment without knowledge or consultation with Khammam Municipal Corporation, Roads and Buildings Department, Gram Panchayats and other local bodies. The District Collector had also brought to the notice of the respondents that the cost of land acquisition under the impugned alignment would be substantially higher in view of the development and compensation already paid at Rs. 1 crore per acre, yet the said representation was rejected by the respondents without assigning cogent or detailed reasons.

1.3. Petitioners also contend that respondents have deliberately withheld the names of land owners and particulars of land in the notification, with an intention to conceal the identity of influential persons whose lands are being benefited, while small land owners are adversely affected, thereby acting in a manner lacking transparency and fairness. In the absence of necessary particulars as mandated under Section 3A(2), the affected land owners are left without any meaningful opportunity to raise objections, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the entire process arbitrary. Petitioners also contend that respondents indulged in disinformation and misinformati