Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11884

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Veginati Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 14632 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Prabhakar, E. Hari Babu
For the Respondents: N. Bhujanga Rao, Padma Rao Lakkaraju

A writ petition challenging land acquisition for infrastructure projects is premature and non-maintainable if the petitioner has not exhausted the efficacious alternative statutory remedy provided under the governing legislation for responding to preliminary notifications and raising factual or technical objections.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A(1), 3A(2), 3B, 3C and 3D - Acquisition of land for national highways - Two-stage process comprising preliminary notification for determination of objections followed by final declaration - Statutory remedy under Section 3C provides an efficacious mechanism for parties to address grievances regarding land identification, alignment, and procedural compliance - Judicial review of technical decisions and infrastructure projects is limited and must not be exercised to bypass statutory forums unless there is clear demonstration of perversity or mala fides - (Paras 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution - Extraordinary jurisdiction - Availability of an alternative statutory remedy - High Court ordinarily declines to entertain petitions where an efficacious alternative mechanism exists for adjudication of factual disputes, such as survey discrepancies, environmental impact assessments, and technical alignment feasibility - High Court will not sit in appeal over expert decisions involving engineering or policy unless statutory process is exhausted or patent illegality is manifest. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged notifications issued under the Act for the acquisition of lands pertaining to a highway development project, alleging procedural irregularities, improper segmentation of the project, violation of environmental guidelines, and lack of stakeholder consultation. The petitioners asserted that the alignment was chosen mala fide to benefit influential persons, disregarded local development plans and noise-sensitive areas, and failed to provide sufficient particulars in preliminary notifications.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the challenges involving the adequacy of notifications, discrepancies in survey numbers, and the feasibility of alternative alignments are primarily questions of fact. These issues fall squarely within the scope of the competent authority under Section 3C of the Act, which is mandated to conduct an inquiry into objections. The court determined that the writ petition was premature as the petitioners failed to exhaust the available statutory remedy.

Issues: The main issues were whether the notifications under the Act were procedurally flawed and if the highway alignment was fixed in an arbitrary or mala fide manner, and whether judicial intervention under Article 226 was warranted despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 3C.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal scheme provides a robust self-contained mechanism for redressing grievances against land acquisition. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the court must adhere to the rule of exhaustion of remedies, allowing the designated statutory authority to objectively consider and reason through technical and factual objections before judicial scrutiny is invoked.

Result: The writ petition is disposed of as premature, with liberty granted to the petitioners to file objections before the competent authority.

Table of Content
1. petitioners allege procedural illegality and mala fide in highway alignment. (Para 1)
2. respondents maintain adherence to statutory procedures and technical feasibility. (Para 2)
3. rebuttal of respondents' claims and reiteration of statutory non-compliance. (Para 3)
4. writ petition dismissed as premature due to available alternative statutory remedy (section 3c). (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

O R D E R:

The case of Petitioners is that the National Highways Authority of India has planned the Greenfield Highway NH-163G from Nagpur in Maharashtra to Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh, which is a Category "A" project as per the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. The said highway passes from Warangal to Khanımam to Vijayawada and the impugned alignment was approved on 03.01.2019 by NHAI and subsequently, approved by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, as reflected in the letter dated 08.02.2024 issued by the NHAI Project Implementation Unit-1, Khammam. The project appears to have been conceived much earlier and yet the process has been undertaken in a manner detrimental to public interest.

1.1. Petitioners further contend that the alignment crosses Wyra Road on the eastern side of Khammam city and successive notifications under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021, S.Q. 3563(E) dated 29.07.2022, S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022, S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024, along with several others, were issued in unknown newspapers without furnishing particulars of land owners and the extent of land proposed to be acquired as mandated under Section 3A(2) of the Act. The impugned alignment is unnecessarily circuitous inasmuch as, to reach Vijayawada from Warangal, the highway need not cross Khammam city or intersect Wyra Road on the eastern side, and instead could have been aligned on the western side of Khammam in a straight line or alternatively routed via Suryapet to Vijayawada National Highway without crossing river Muneru. The longer alignment has been deliberately adopted to benefit certain influential persons holding large extents of land, resulting in loss of thousands of crores of rupees to the public exchequer and adversely affecting the lives and properties of the local population.

1.2. Petitioners further contend that Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) and the consequential Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023 issued under Section 3D(1) in respect of the stretch from Km 203.8 to Km 220.48 are mutually contradictory, as the villages and survey numbers mentioned therein do not correspond with each other. The Petitioners specifically contend that V. Venkatayapalem village is mentioned in Notification S.O. 4407(E) but does not find place in Notification S.O. 3928, thereby rendering both notifications liable to be set aside.

1.3. The impugned alignment at V. Venkatayapalem Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District has been finalized in total violation of the Act, the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Respondents had identified three alternative alignments, namely (a) abutting Khammam Municipal Corporation on the east, (b) further east to Khammam, and (c) still further east to option (b), but deliberately selected alignment "A" with mala fide intention to benefit certain politicians, disregarding statutory provisions, the letter of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022, and the health and financial safety of the Petitioners. Petitioners assert that the entire exercise of fixing the alignment from Warangal to Khammam is illegal, mala fide and futile.

1.4. Petitioners further contend that there has been complete disregard of public concerns and sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11884

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNagesh Bheemapaka, JVeginati Kishore – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentWRIT PETITION No. 14632 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Veginati Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 14632 OF 2024