Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No. 20230 OF 2024

07.04.2026

Between:

Papineni Venkateshwarlu & others

..... Petitioners

And

The Union of India,

Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,

New Delhi & others.

..... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Rajeshwar Rao
For the Respondents: N. Bhujanga Rao, Padma Rao Lakkaraju

When a special statute, like the National Highways Act, 1956, provides a comprehensive mechanism (Section 3C) for resolving disputes regarding land acquisition and alignment, the High Court shall not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate factual and technical grievances instead of the statutory authority.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D - Land acquisition for Greenfield Highway - Challenge to alignment and notification procedure - Writ jurisdiction when effective statutory remedy exists - Court held that statutory scheme provides a mechanism under Section 3C for raising objections regarding alignment and procedural irregularities - Petitioners directed to avail alternative remedy before competent authority.

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the notifications issued for the acquisition of land for the Nagpur-Vijayawada NH-163G Greenfield Highway, alleging arbitrary alignment, lack of public consultation, and violations of various guidelines, including those related to environmental impact assessments and project segmentation.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact and technical expert assessment, which fall under the scope of Section 3C of the 1956 Act. It ruled that the writ court should not bypass the statutory mechanism when an efficacious remedy is available.

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the National Highways Act and whether the court should adjudicate on complex technical and factual allegations regarding highway alignment.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute provides a comprehensive and efficacious remedy for adjudication of factual and technical disputes, the court must refrain from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction and instead require the parties to undergo the established statutory process.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of; petitioners given liberty to file objections under Section 3C.

O R D E R:

Petitioners contend that as per the letter of the NHAI Project Implementation Unit-1, Khammam dated 08.02.2024, the impugned Nagpur to Vijayawada NH-163G Greenfield Highway alignment was initially approved on 03.01.2019 by NHAI and subsequently approved by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, and thereafter successive notifications have been issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, culminating in Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 and the declaration under Section 3D(1) vide Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023 for a stretch of 16.6 km, thereby subjecting the Petitioners to prolonged uncertainty and mental agony from 2019 till date.

1.1. Petitioners further contend that repeated re-issuance of notifications after lapse of earlier notifications is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the intent of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that such reissuance cannot be mechanical but must be justified by taking into account changes that occurred during the intervening period, including stakeholder concerns, and must necessarily be preceded by fresh surveys and meaningful public consultations.

1.2. It is also contended that the District Collector, Khammam, by letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to the authorities concerned through the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, had specifically pointed out that the impugned alignment was finalized without consultation with local bodies such as Khammam Municipality, R&B Department and Gram Panchayats, and further highlighted that the State Government had paid Rs.1 crore per acre in 2018 for construction of the new Collectorate, thereby rendering the cost of acquisition for the impugned alignment exorbitantly high, and also pointed out that the State Government had planned a ring road for Khammam with allocation of Rs 200 crores for land acquisition.

1.3. The District Collector, in the said letter dated 17.05.2022, further stated that the entire city of Khammam falls within 15 km aerial distance from the project boundary, thereby adversely affecting nearly 5 lac population, and that the area has already undergone urbanization due to the construction of Collectorate near V. Venkatayapalem and the proposed ring road, resulting in severe loss of commercial house plots to the affected persons. Petitioners further contend that the Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, Sri Nama Nageswara Rao, addressed representation to the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways requesting that the impugned alignment be shifted by at least 5 km in view of the State's master plan for Khammam ring road and the consequent urbanization, and that two Members of the Rajya Sabha also addressed similar representations seeking change of alignment.

1.4. Petitioners also contend that several similarly-situated land losers approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 3921 of 2023, 20359 of 2023, 9109 of 2024 and 14632 of 2024 and obtained interim orders, thereby demonstrating the widespread grievance against the impugned alignment. It is further contended, the impugned Gazette Notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is in clear violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act, inasmuch as it does not contain proper and sufficient particulars of the lands proposed to be acquired, and only vague and misleading particulars were furnished so as to deprive the affected persons of an effective and meaningful opportunity to object.

1.5. Respondents, it is stated, deliberately published the impugned notifications in newspapers such as Hans India and Mana Telangana, which have limited circulation, with the intention of avoiding public notice and preventing affected persons from raising objections. The impugned action is in derogation of the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956, particularly the requirement that the DPR consultant or concerned officer must provide an indicative assessment o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document