LAW FOR ALL : NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 (NH ACT) — Sections 2(2), 3A, 3C, 3D, 3G, 3H RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (RFCTLRR ACT) — Section 23, 26 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Articles 14, 19, 21, 300-A Land Acquisition – Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings for Greenfield National Highway (NH-365BG) – Non-declaration under Section 2(2) of NH Act – Procedural Compliance – Market Value Determination – Land Conversion. A. National Highways Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) and 3A Notification: Challenge to acquisition proceedings on the ground that the road, prior to the Section 3A Notification, was not formally declared a National Highway under Section 2(2) of the NH Act; contention that the entire acquisition process is ultra vires and a colourable exercise of power to evade the RFCTLRR Act. B. Procedural Due Process — Section 3C and 3G: Allegation that the Competent Authority failed to conduct a proper enquiry, provide a reasoned order on objections filed under Section 3C, and failed to furnish a copy of the final Award, violating the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate. C. Compensation and Market Value — Section 23, 26 (RFCTLRR Act): Contention that the acquired lands were converted to non-agricultural lands prior to the Section 3A Notification, requiring the market value to be determined based on non-agricultural rates; challenge to the multiplication factor used in compensation calculation. D. Alternative Remedy: Plea by Respondent NHAI that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy to seek enhanced compensation by invoking arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act.

Tuesday, November 4, 2025

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 (NH ACT) — Sections 2(2), 3A, 3C, 3D, 3G, 3H RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (RFCTLRR ACT) — Section 23, 26 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Articles 14, 19, 21, 300-A Land Acquisition – Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings for Greenfield National Highway (NH-365BG) – Non-declaration under Section 2(2) of NH Act – Procedural Compliance – Market Value Determination – Land Conversion. A. National Highways Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) and 3A Notification: Challenge to acquisition proceedings on the ground that the road, prior to the Section 3A Notification, was not formally declared a National Highway under Section 2(2) of the NH Act; contention that the entire acquisition process is ultra vires and a colourable exercise of power to evade the RFCTLRR Act. B. Procedural Due Process — Section 3C and 3G: Allegation that the Competent Authority failed to conduct a proper enquiry, provide a reasoned order on objections filed under Section 3C, and failed to furnish a copy of the final Award, violating the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate. C. Compensation and Market Value — Section 23, 26 (RFCTLRR Act): Contention that the acquired lands were converted to non-agricultural lands prior to the Section 3A Notification, requiring the market value to be determined based on non-agricultural rates; challenge to the multiplication factor used in compensation calculation. D. Alternative Remedy: Plea by Respondent NHAI that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy to seek enhanced compensation by invoking arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act.

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 (NH ACT) — Sections 2(2), 3A, 3C, 3D, 3G, 3H

RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (RFCTLRR ACT) — Section 23, 26

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Articles 14, 19, 21, 300-A

Land Acquisition – Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings for Greenfield National Highway (NH-365BG) – Non-declaration under Section 2(2) of NH Act – Procedural Compliance – Market Value Determination – Land Conversion.

A. National Highways Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) and 3A Notification: Challenge to acquisition proceedings on the ground that the road, prior to the Section 3A Notification, was not formally declared a National Highway under Section 2(2) of the NH Act; contention that the entire acquisition process is ultra vires and a colourable exercise of power to evade the RFCTLRR Act.

B. Procedural Due Process — Section 3C and 3G: Allegation that the Competent Authority failed to conduct a proper enquiry, provide a reasoned order on objections filed under Section 3C, and failed to furnish a copy of the final Award, violating the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate.

C. Compensation and Market Value — Section 23, 26 (RFCTLRR Act): Contention that the acquired lands were converted to non-agricultural lands prior to the Section 3A Notification, requiring the market value to be determined based on non-agricultural rates; challenge to the multiplication factor used in compensation calculation.

D. Alternative Remedy: Plea by Respondent NHAI that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy to seek enhanced compensation by invoking arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act.

Final Order: Writ Petition disposed of; acquisition proceedings upheld; petitioners directed to seek recourse before the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) for compensation disputes.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* * *

WRIT PETITION NO.10280 OF 2022

Between:

# Mullapudi Yamini Pushkarini and Others …Petitioners

And

$ Union of India and Others …Respondents

Date of Judgment pronounced : 20-06-2025

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No

may be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No

to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No

Of the Judgment?

_________________________

JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

2025:APHC:22777

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

+ WRIT PETITION NO.10280 OF 2022

% Dated: 20-06-2025

Between:

# Mullapudi Yamini Pushkarini and Others …Petitioners

And

$ Union of India and Others …Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : M.R.K.CHAKRAVARTHY

^ Counsel for Respondent(s) : 1. CHAUDARY AND CHAUDARY ADVOCATES

AND SOLICITORS LAW FIRM

2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. (2021) 3 SCC 572

2. (2011) 10 SCC 714

3. (2012) SCC Online AP 148

4. (2005) 13 SCC 477

5. 2005(7) SC 627

6. 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 247

7. (2022) SCC Online SC 362

8. 2021 SCC Online SC 1247

9. (1997)1 SCC 134

10.(2011) 12 SCC 69

11.MANU/PH/0150/2022

2025:APHC:22777

APHC010180142022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3233]

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 10280/2022

Between:

1. MULLAPUDI YAMINI PUSHKARINI,, W/O M.ASHOK AGED ABOUT 29

YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, RIO D.NO.3-79, YERRAMPETA,

KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH

2. PAKALAPATI SHYAM KRISHNA,, S/O P.NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT

41 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, RIO D.NO.2-141, YERRAMPETA

VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH

3. MARNI LOKESH CHOWDARY,, S/O M.V.V.BHASKARA RAO AGED ABOUT

30 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RIO D.NO.1-49, YERRAMPETA VILLAGE,

KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P

4. KODAVATI RAMA KRISHNA,, S/O K.BULLIRAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

OCC CULTIVATION, RIO D.NO.5-41, KANNAYAGUDEM VILLAGE,

KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P

5. JAMMULA UDAYA BHASKAR,, S/O J.VENKATA DURGA RAO, AGED

ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RIO D.NO.5-5,

KANNAYYAGUDEM VILLAGE, KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, WEST

GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

2025:APHC:22777

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF

SHIPPING ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN,

1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY (LAND ACQUISITION) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

3. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP BY ITS

CHAIRMAN, 05 AND 6, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110075.

4. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

PROJECT DIRECTOR, NHAI, NU, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI.

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,

COLLECTORATE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI.

6. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LA, NH-365 BG AND JOINT COLLECTOR

(VS, WS AND D), ELURU, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased

toIt is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order

or Direction, more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus, to declare the

Notifications, Award Enquiry Notices, Award, Award Notices, Environment

Clearance (impact assessment) issued under the provisions of the National

Highways Act, 1956 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, EIA Notification, 2006 vide

(i) SO.No. 1388 (E) published in Gazette No. 1240 dated 27.04.2020 and under

Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 published in Hans India, Andhra

Jyothi daily newspapers dated 08.05.2020 (ii) S.O.No.4189(E), MORT and H dated

23.11.2020 published in Gazette No.3687 under Section 3D of the NH Act (iii)

Public. Notice Rc.No. 1/202020/CALA and JCNHAI/365BG, dated 08.08.2020

published in Praja Sakthi and Hans India newspapers on 20.01.2021 under Section

3(G)(3) of the NH Act (iv) Award Enquiry Notices issued vide R.O.C.No.1/NH-365

BG/2020 dated 20.01.2021 and 23.01.2021 (v) Award.Nos.6/2021/NH-365 BG,

7/2021 /NH-365 BG, dated 15.03. 2021 of the Sixth Respondent under Section 23

of the RFCTLRR Act R/w Section 3G of the NH Act (vi) Award Notices issued vide

Roc.No.01/2020/NH-365 BG dated 17.07. 2021 under Section 3H(2) of the NH Act,

2025:APHC:22777

1956 and Section 26 of the RFCTLRR Act (vii) Proceedings in File No. 10-

51/2020-IA.III, dated 23.12.2021 issued for the alleged public purpose for building

(widening/two-lane with paved shoulder/four laning etc.), maintenance,

management and operation of Khammam - Devarapalli Greenfield National Highway

(yet to be Assigned) in the stretch of land from Km 148.285 to Km 220.586 in the

district .of West Godavari (office of District Collector Eluru) in the state of Andhra

Pradesh issued in respect of the Petitioners land ad-measuring 5909 Sq. Mts (Ac.1-

46 Cents), 1255 Sq.Mts (A.c.0- 27 Cents) situated in RS Nos 37/2, 31/2 of

Rajavaram Village, 2833 Sq.Mts (Ac.0- 70 Cents) situated in RS.No.233/1B2, 526

Sq.Mts (Ac. 0-12 Cents) situated in Rs No.233/1C2, 40 Sq.Mts (Ac. 0-01 Cent)

situated in RS.No. 194/4A, 1336 Sq.Mts (Ac. 0-33 Cents) situated in RS.No.194/5A,

648 Sq.Mts (Ac. 0-16 Cents) situated in RS.No.194/6, 1781 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-44 Cents)

situated in RS.No.194/3B, 1538 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-38 cents) situated in RS.No.195/4A,

3278 (Ac.0-81 Cents) situated in RS.No. 195/2B, 122 Sq.Mts (Ac. 0-03 Cents)

situated in . 194'7A, 41 Sq.Mts(Ac. 0-01 Cents) situated in RS.No. 194/8A of

Eduvadalapalem Village, 17928 Sq.Mts (Ac.4-41 Cents) situated in RS.No.84/2B,

10719 Sq.Mts (Ac.2-65 Cents) situated in RS.No.88/1B, 8215 Sq.Mts (Ac.2-02

Cents) situated in RS.No. 109/2, 607 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-14 Cents) situated.. in RS.No.

108/2F1 of Kannaigudem Village all of Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari

District as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19,

21 and 300-A of the Constitution and consequently quash the same and pass

such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case Prayer is amended as per the Court Order

dated.30.01.2024 vide order passed in IA No.01 of 2024.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased

to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Gazette No.2888 dated 25.07.2018,

Gazette. No. 1240 dated 27.04.2020 in SO.No.1388 (E) dated 27.04.2020 under

Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 published in Hans India, Andhra

Jyothi daily newspapers dated 08.05.2020, Gazette No.3687 in S.O.No.4189(E),

MORT & H dated 23.11.2020 under Section 3D, Public Notice

Rc.No.1/202020/CALA&JC/ NHAI/365BG, dated 08.08.2020 published in Praja

Sakthi and Hans India news papers on 20.01.2021 under Section 3(G)(3) and

Award Nos.05/2021/N.H.365 BG, 6/2021/ N.H.365 BG and 7/2021/NH-365BG dated

15.03.2021 under Section 3(G)(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 R/w Section

23 & Schedule-I of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition Rehabilitation Act and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of the

2025:APHC:22777

Petitioners lands to an extent of 5909 Sq.Mts (Ac.l-46 Cents), 1255 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-27

Cents) situated in RS.Nos.37/2, 31/2 of Rajavaram Village, 2833 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-70

Cents) situated in RS.No.233/1B2, 526 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-12 Cents) situated in

RS.No.233/1C2, 40 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-01 Cent) situated in RS.No.194/4A, 1336 Sq.Mts

(Ac.0-33 Cents) situated in RS.No.194/5A, 648 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-16 Cents) situated in

RS.No.194/6, 1781 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-44 Cents) situated in RS.No.194/3B, 1538 Sq.Mts

(Ac.0-38 Cents) situated in RS.No.195/4A, 3278 (Ac.0-81 Cents) situated in

RS.No.195/2B, 122 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-03 Cents) situated in RS.No.194/7A, 41 Sq.Mts

(Ac.0-01 Cents) situated in RS.No.194/8A of Eduvadalapalem Village, 17928

Sq.Mts (Ac.4-41 Cents) situated in RS.No.84/2B, 10719 Sq.Mts (Ac.2-65 Cents)

situated in RS.No.88/1B, 8215 Sq.Mts (Ac.2-02 Cents) situated in RS.No.109/2, 607

Sq.Mts (Ac.O-14 Cents) situated in RS.No.108/2F1 of Kannaigudem Village all the

villages in Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District including dispossessing

the Petitioners and laying of the Greenfield National Highway NH 365 BG pending

disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased

to dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim orders dated 21-04-2022 in IA

1/2022 in WP. 10280/2022

IA NO: 3 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased

to vacate the interim orders dated 21-04-2022 passed in IA 1/2022 in WP.

10280/2022 and dismiss the writ petition

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased

to grant leave to the Petitioners to file the Additional Reply Affidavit in the above WP

No.10280 of 2022 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased

to permit the Petitioners to bring on record the Objections dated 22/07/2021 filed at

2025:APHC:22777

Public Hearing dated 22/07/2021 at Jangaredygudem as additional documents in

the above Writ Petition No. 10280 of 2022 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased eased to

permit the Petitioners to amend the Affidavit and the prayer in the Writ Petition as

under; “14. It i.s, therefore, prayed that this Hon'hle Court may he pleased to issue

a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus, to

declare the Notiifcations, Award Enquiry Notices, Award, Award Noiices issued

under the provi.sions ofthe National Highways Act, 1956 and the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 vide: (i) SO.No. 1388 (E) published in Gazeite No. 1240

dated 27.04.2020 and under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956

published in Hans India, Andhra Jyothi daily newspapers dated 08.05.2020, (ii)

S.O.No.4189(E), MORE & LI dated 23.11.2020 published in Gazeite No.3687

under Section 3D of the NH Act, (in) Public Notice Rc. No. 1/202020

CALA&JCNHAI365BG, dated 08. 08.2020 published in Praja Sakthi and Hans India

newspapers on 20.01.2021 under Section 3(G)(3) of the NH Act; (iv) .Award Ijujuiry

Notices is.sued vide R.O.C.No.I NH-365 BG 2020 dated 20.01.2021 and

23.01.2021 (V) Award.Nos.6 2021 NH-365 BG, 7 2021 NH-365 BG, dated 15.03.

2021 of the Sixth Respondent under Section 23 of the RldlTLRR Act R w Section

3G of the NH Act; (VI) .Award Notices issued vide Roc.No.OI 2020 NH-365 BG

dated 17.07. 2021 under Section 3H(2) of the NH Act, 1956 and Section 26 of the

RbCTiRRAct: issued for the alleged public purpose for building (widening two-lane

with paved shoulder four laning etc.,), maintenance, management and operation (f

Khammam - Devarapalli Greenifeld National Highway (yet to he Assigned) in the

sirelch of land from Km 148.285 to Km 220.586 in the district of West Godavari

(ofifce of Di.strict Collector Kluni) in the .state of Andhra Pradesh issued in respect

of the Petitioners land ad-measuring 5909 Sep Mis (Ac. 1-46 Cents), 1255 Sq.Mts

(Ac.O- 27 Cents) .situated in RS Nos 37 2, 31 2 of Rajavaram Village, 2833 Sq.Mts

(Ac.O- 70 Cents) situated in RS.No.233 1B2, 526 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-12 CenLs) situated

in RS.No.233 1C2, 40 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-01 ('em) situated in RS.No. 194 4A, 1336

SepMts (Ac.0-33 Ceni.s) situated in RS.No. 194 5A, 648 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-16 Cents)

situated in RS.No. 194 6, 1781 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-44 Cents) situated in RS.No. 1943B,

1538 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-38 Cents) situated in RS.No.195 4A, 3278 (Ac.0-81 Cents)

situated in RS.No. 195 2B. 122 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-03 Cents) .situated in RS.No. 194 7A,

41 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-01 Cents) sitttated in RS.No. 194 8A of Kdiivadalapalem Village,

17928 Sq.Mts (Ac.4-41 Cents) situated in RS.No.84/2B, 10719 Sq.Mts (Ac.2-65

2025:APHC:22777

Cents) situated in RS.No.88 IB, 8215 Sq.Mts (Ac.2-02 Cents) .situated in RS.No.

109 2, 607 Sq.Mts (Ac.O-14 Cents) .Stmated in RS.No. 108. 2FI of Kannaigudem

Village all of Koyyalagitdem Mandal, West Godavari District as tllegal, arbitrary,

wholly without jurisdiction and violative ofArticles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the

Constitution and consequently quash the .same and pa.ss .such other order or

orders as this Hon'hle Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

ca.se. With the following words and letters: "14. It is, therefore, prayed that this

Hon'hle Court may be pleased to issue a rit, Order or Direction, more paritcnlarly

one in the Writ of Mandamus, to declare the Notiifcations, Award Enquiiy Notices,

Award, Award Notices, Environment Clearance (impact assessment) issued under

the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acc}ui,sition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013, EIA Notification, 2006 vide: (i) SO.No. 1388 (E) puhli.shed

in Gazette No. 1240 dated 27.04.2020 and under Section 3A of the National

Highways Act, 1956 published in Hans India, Andhra Jyothi daily newspapers dated

08.05.2020, (ii) S.O.No.4189(E), MORE N H dated 23.11.2020 published in

Gazette No.3687 under Section 3D of the NH Act, (Hi) Public Notice Rc. No.

1202020 CALA&.IC NHAT365BG. dated 08. 08.2020 published in Praja Saklhi and

Hans India newspapers on 20.01.2021 under Section 3(G)(3) of the NH Act; (iv)

Award Enquiry Notices is.sued vide R.O.C.No.l NH-365 BG 2020 dated 20.01.2021

and 23.01.2021 (v) Award.Nos.6:2021/NH-365 BG, 7 2021 NH-365 BG, dated

15.03. 2021 of the Sixth Re.spondent under Section 23 of the RFCTLRR Act R w

Section 3G of the NH Act; (vi) Award Notices is.sued vide Roc.No.Ol 2020 NH-365

BG dated 17.07. 2021 under Section 3H(2) of the NH Act, 1956 and Section 26 of

the RFCTLRR Act; (vit) Proceedings in File No. 10-5T2020-1A.Ill, dated

23.12.2021; issued for the alleged public purpose for building (widening two-lane

with paved shoulder four laning etc.,), maintenance, management and operation of

Khammam - Devarapalli Greenfield National Highway (yet to beAssigned) in the

stretch of land from Km 148.285 to Km 220.586 in the district of West Godavari

(ofifce of District Collector Eluni) in the state of Andhra Pradesh issued in respect of

the Petitioners land ad-measuring 5909 Sq. Mis (Ac. 1-46 Cents), 1255 Sq.Mts

(Ac.O- 27 Cents) situated in RS Nos 3.72, 31 2 of Rajavaram Village, 2833 Sq.Mts

(Ac.O- 70 Cents) .situated in RS.No.233 1B2, 526 Sq.Mts (Ac.O-12 Cents) situated

in RS.No.233 1C2, 40 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-01 Cent) situated in RS.No. 194 4A, 1336

Sq.Mts (Ac.0-33 Cents) situated in RS.No. 194/5A, 648 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-16 Cents)

situated in RS.No. 194 6, 1781 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-44 Cents) .situated in RS.No. 194 3B,

1538 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-38 Cents) situated in RS.No. 195 4A, 3278 (Ac.0-81 Cents)

situated in RS.No. 195 2B, 122 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-03 Cents) situated in RS.No. 194 7A,

41 Sq.Mts Ac. 0-0J Cent.s) situated in RS.No. 194 8A of Ediivadalapalem Village,

2025:APHC:22777

17928 Scj.Mts (Ac.4-41 Cents) situated in RS.No.84 28, 10719 Sq.Mts (Ac.2-65

Cents) situated in RS.No.88 18, 8215 Sq.Mts .(Ac.2-02 Cent.s) .situated in RS.No.

109 2, 607 Sq.Mts (Ac.0-14 Cents) situated in RS.No. 108 2FI of Kannaigudem

Ullage all of Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary,

wholly without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the

('onstitution and con.sequently quash the .same and pa.ss such other order or

orders as this Hon'hle Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case. and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased

to permit the Petitioners to bring on record the photographs and market value

certificate annexed to this lA on record as additional material in the above Writ

Petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.M R K CHAKRAVARTHY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS

LAW FIRM

2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

The Court made the following ORDER:

The land owners, whose lands have come under acquisition for

construction of a four-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway by National

Highway Authority of India (NHAI) from Khammam-Devarapalli are before this

Court.

2025:APHC:22777

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel

appearing for the respondents.

3. The present petition is filed challenging the Notifications, Award

Enquiry Notices, Award, Award Notices issued under the National Highways

Act, 1956, EIA Notification, 2006 viz., (i) SO.No. 1388 (E) published in

Gazette No.1240 dated 27.04.2020 and under section 3A of the NH Act,

1956 published in Hans India, Andhra Jyothi daily News Papers dated

08.05.2020 (ii) S.O.No.4189(E), MORT & H dated 23.11.2020 published in

Gazette No.3687 under section 3D of the NH Act, (iii) Public Notice

Rc.No.1/2020/CALA&JC/NHAI/365BG, dated 08.08.2020 under section

3(G)(3) of the NH Act; (iv) Award Enquiry Notices vide ROC No.1/NH-365

BG/2020 dated 20.01.2020 and 23.01.2021; (v) Award Nos.6/2021/NH365BG, 7/2021/NH-365 BG, dated 15.03.2021 of the 6th Respondent under

section 23 of RFCTLRR Act r/w section 3G of the NH Act; (vi) Award Notices

issued vide Roc.No.01/2020/NH-365 BG dated 17.07.2021 under section

3H(2) of the NH Act, 1956 and section 26 of RFCTLRR Act; (vii) Proceedings

in File No.10-51/2020-IA.III, dated 23.12.2021.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners

are the owners of the lands in Rajavaram, Iduvadalapalem, Kannayagudem

Villages, Koyyalagudem Mandal of West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

2025:APHC:22777

The said revenue lands were sought to be acquired for public purpose of

constructing Khammam-Devarapalli four-lane access-controlled Greenfield

Highway by Respondents (NHAI).

It is the case of the Petitioners that they have paid conversion tax as

regulated under Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for NonAgricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (APLA Act) and that the same has been

intimated to Revenue Divisional Officer. The Petitioners contend that the land

stood converted on payment of conversion tax by the date of Sec.3A

Notification by virtue of Section 3 of APLA Act. However, W.P.No.1377 of

2019 pertaining to conversion of the said lands to non-agricultural lands is

pending before this Hon‟ble Court.

It is also contented by the Petitioners that initially in the year 2018, the

Respondents have issued Notification and Awards similar to the impugned

Proceedings and on receiving objections dated 05.11.2018 from the

Petitioners that the alleged road is not a National Highway published under

NH Act and therefore the provisions of NH Act cannot be invoked, the

Respondent authorities dropped the acquisition proceedings and that after a

lapse of two years, fresh notifications have been issued which are impugned

in the case on hand.

2025:APHC:22777

It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for Petitioners that

there is no declaration by the Union of India (1st Respondent) in the Gazette

that the proposed road is a National Highway as mandated under Section

2(2) of the NH Act and therefore the NH Act does not apply and that the

entire impugned Proceedings of acquisition, Notification and Awards are ultra

vires liable to be set aside. It is also argued by the learned counsel for

Petitioners that it is nothing but colourable exercise of power just to escape

the rigors of RFCTLRR Act.

The learned counsel for Petitioners further stated that the Petitioners

have raised objections under Section 3C dated 15.05.2020 and that they

have also filed claim statements in the office of the Competent Authority,

Land Acquisition (6th Respondent) dated 27.01.2021 and 28.01.2021 under

Section 21(2) of RFCTLRR Act and that the Land Acquisition Officer passed

the Award without conducting any enquiry.

It was also submitted by the learned counsel for Petitioners that it was

surprising that the copy of the Award No.7/2021/NH 365BG dt:__.03.3021

was not furnished to the Petitioners and that they had to file the present

petition without annexing the copy of the same. It is also the case of the

Petitioners that notice dated 20.01.2021 under Section 3G(3) of the NH Act is

not in conformity with the RFCTLRR Act. It is also their case that the

2025:APHC:22777

Respondents have not taken into consideration the prevailing market values

despite objection being raised and that the lands are non-agricultural lands

and the value should have been determined basing on the prevailing market

value of non-agricultural lands as the lands have been converted to nonagricultural lands prior to the impugned Notification issued vide Gazette

No.1240 dated 27.04.2020 in S.O.No.1388(E) dated 27.04.2020 under

Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, 1956.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions

relied upon the following decisions:

i) Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy

& Ors 1

ii) J&K Housing Board and another v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and

others2

--- To reiterate that statutory provision provides a particular manner for

doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in the manner

prescribed.

iii) Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy v. Union Government3

(2021) 3 SCC 572

(2011) 10 SCC 714

(2012) SCC Online AP 148

2025:APHC:22777

iv) Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and others

--- Held in the absence of plan, it is difficult to raise objections under

section 3(c)(1).

v) Hindustan Petroleum v. Darius Shapur Chennai and others5

--- Section 3(c)(2) casts a duty on the competent authority to consider

the objections after hearing the objections and making further enquiry shall

allow or disallow the objections and competent authority must give reasons

that the objections raised by the petitioners were dealt by assigning reasons.

But the Competent authority has not applied its mind and the objections were

not dealt with objectively by the competent authority.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chidambaram for

the Respondents submitted that the National Highways Authority of India

(NHAI) has taken up construction of four lane access controlled Green Field

Highway Project from Khammam-Devarapalli section measuring 162.126 km

in length declared as NH 365BG (erstwhile 365-BB) and the National

Highway Authority of India has decided to construct the KhammamDevarapalli connecting Telangana & Andhra Pradesh states under Inter

Corridor route under Bharathmala Pariyojana as per the directions of the

(2005) 13 SCC 477

2005 (7) SCC 627

2025:APHC:22777

Hon‟ble Prime Minister during Pragathi Meeting held on 23.05.2018 and the

minutes are as follows:

(i) Ministry of Road Transport & Highways should complete survey as per

revised alignment and accordingly, submit the revised Land Acquisition

proposals to Government of Telangana by September, 2018.

(ii) Ministry of Road Transport & Highways in co-ordination with State

Government should resolve all the issues hindering the project and start the

construction work.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the

said project has been taken up as a part of green field project as it reduced

the distance between Rajahmundry and Hyderabad by 56km and between

Khammam to Devarapalli by 24 km and creates substantial gains in terms of

vehicle operating cost, reduced travel time and that it is set to boost

economic development of the adjoining areas and that it is considered as

“high priority” as it improves connectivity between the two states of

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and also aims to decongest NH 65 and NH

16. The counsel for the Respondents also stated that in pursuance of the

same the DPR work was transferred to NHAI via a tripartite agreement and

that the subject work is included in PRAGATI review and the alignment was

reviewed by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in 3rd

2025:APHC:22777

week of May, 2018 and that the green field alignment from Khammam to

Devarapalli was given a go ahead by the Hon‟ble Prime Minister in the

meeting held on 23.05.2018.

The learned Senior counsel for the Respondents submitted that the

Joint Collector (A&W) Eluru, was designated as Competent Authority for Land

Acquisition for this project vide Orders 3672(E), dated 25.07.2018. Ministry of

Road Transport and Highways Department has issued Notification in S.O.No.

1388(E) dt:27.04.2020 under Section 3A of NH Act, 1956 for acquisition of

land for formation of NH-365 BG. It is argued by the learned counsel for the

Respondents that the Competent Authority Land Acquisition („CALA‟ for

short) had provided an opportunity of hearing to the land owners and that

infact, the Petitioners attended the enquiry on 04.09.2020 and gave a joint

statement before the authority. Subsequent to the enquiry, the CALA

disallowed the objection vide order dt: 07.09.2020 under section 3C as the

lands are being acquired for public purpose. The learned counsel also refuted

the material allegation made by the Petitioners regarding Section 3C

objections enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioners and 11 others

have filed Section 3C objections on a Section 3A Notification dt: 27.04.2020.

It is also the case of the Respondents that after verification of an extent

of 73,366 sq.mts in Kannaigudem village of Koyyalagudem Mandal,

2025:APHC:22777

Notification u/s 3D(1) and 3D(2) of NH Act has been proposed for approval of

length through the Project Director, NHAI, PIU, Rajahmundry and the

Government of India in exercise of its powers conferred under the said

section vide its Notification S.O.4189(E) dated 23.11.2020 declared that the

lands specified in the schedule acquired for the purpose and in pursuance of

Section 3D(2) shall vest absolutely with the Central Government free from all

encumbrances. Notification with respect to the same has been published in

E.O. issue Part II Section 3 of sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India Issue

No. 3687, dt: 23.11.2020.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents argued that Section

3G Notification was published in one Telugu daily News paper and two

English News papers on 20.01.2021 appraising the land owners/interested

persons to attend award enquiry along with title documents in support of their

claims on 27.01.2021. Subsequently the competent authority conducted the

said enquiry and passed an Award in respect of the lands as per the

provisions of the NH Act, 1956 and section 26 of RFCTLRR Act, 2013.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents refuted the

contention of the Petitioners that the initial Notification issued vide S.O.

No.5130(E), dt: 28.09.2018 was for the entire stretch covered under 31

villages including that of the Petitioners and that the said Notification was

2025:APHC:22777

issued for 70 m width and that out of 31 villages survey was conducted in 24

villages and Section 3D Notification was also published vide S.O. No.156(E),

dt: 09.01.2019 Gazette No.142, dt: 10.01.2019. Since the Petitioners did not

extend their support for survey the same was lapsed and fresh notification

had to be published under Section 3A for an extent of 60m width vide

S.O.No.1388(E), dt: 27.04.2020 Gazette Notification No.1240(E), dt:

27.04.2020 published in Telugu and English Dailies dt: 08.05.2020 calling for

objections under Section 3C. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as

per Section 3G(3) of NH Act, 1956 public notice has been issued on

20.01.2021 inviting the landowners /interested persons to file their claims for

the land proposed for acquisition to establish their title over the land before

the competent authority on 27.01.2021 and the said notice was issued in

Telugu and English News Papers on 20.01.2021.

It is also the case of the Respondents that the compensation was

determined in terms of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and coming to the question of

multiplication factor the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Dept.,

Government of India in its Circular No.NH 11011/30-2015-LA dt: 08.08.2016

clarified that the multiplication factor of 2 which is used in calculation of

determining compensation is notified vide Gazette Notification S.O.425(E) dt:

09.02.2016 is applicable to the land acquired under RFCTLARR and in the

2025:APHC:22777

case of appropriate government defined under Section 3(e)(ii) and 3(e)(v) of

the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 with effect from 01.01.2015. As per the orders of

the NHAI authorities and Government of Andhra Pradesh multiplication factor

was calculated at 1.25 and the award was passed accordingly.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents argued that the

contention of the Petitioners that there is no notification of declaration under

Section 2(2) of NH Act is incorrect and baseless as the Gazette has been

published vide S.O.2163E dt: 30.06.2020 declaring the New National

Highway number as NH-365BG for Greenfield. It is also stated that the sale

transactions of previous three years to the date of issuance of Section 3A

notification were taken into consideration and the market value was

determined in accordance with Section 26 of RFCTLAAR Act, 2013. It is also

vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent that

at every stage notices were issued and due procedure was followed from

time to time.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents further argued that

the Petitioners can file an application before the Arbitrator cum District

Collector, appointed by the Central Government as per Section 3(G)(5) of NH

Act, 1956, if the compensation award is felt to be inadequate. It is also

submitted that the project work is entrusted to Rajamahendravaram

2025:APHC:22777

Greenfield Pvt. Ltd. vide Letter of Award dt: 15.09.2021 and that the

Agreement was concluded on 27.01.2021. It is also argued that the project is

a time bound project and any delay would cause an irreparable loss to the

Authority in the form of penalties, escalation of project cost and ultimately to

the public interest. It is also argued that the writ petition was filed with mala

fide intention to stall the ongoing road widening/construction project which is

undertaken in the interest of public at large and for overall growth and

strengthening of economy of our country.

7. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contentions relied upon

the following decisions:

i) Landowners of Village Suthsoo and others v. State of J&K and

others6

, wherein it was observed that for issuance of notification under

section 3A declaration that a particular stretch of road as a National Highway

is not a prerequisite.

ii) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Dastak NGO and other7

iii) Electrosheets Ltd. v. Union of India and another8

and

2023 SCC Online J&K 247

(2022) SCC Online SC 362

2021 SCC Online SC 1247

2025:APHC:22777

iv) Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy

& Ors, wherein it was observed that environmental clearance is required

before the actual commencement of the work but not necessary at the time of

notification.

8. Having heard the counsels for both the Petitioners and the

Respondents at length and having considered the material on record, this

Court is of the view that the issues raised by the Petitioners can be broadly

classified into two. The primary question that needs to be answered is

whether the project in the impugned proceedings is a national highway

project or not and whether the provisions under sections 3A to I would be

applicable.

The second category of questions pertain to procedure followed in

awarding of compensation, non-consideration of material produced, lack of

opportunity of being heard and multiplication factor.

9. In so far as the first question is concerned, this Court is of the view

that, the project Bharathmala Pariyojana has been conceived with an

intention to optimize the efficiency of freight and passenger movement across

the country by bridging critical infrastructural gaps through effective

interventions like development of Inter Corridors, green field highways etc. As

part of this initiative, the government has taken up this green field project to

2025:APHC:22777

reduce the distance between Rajahmundry and Hyderabad by 56 km and

between Khammam to Devarapalli by 24 km and create substantial gains in

terms of vehicle operating cost, reduced travel time and boost the economic

development of the adjoining areas.

10. National Highways Authority has been constituted under the National

Highways Authority of India Act, 1956 with an object to develop, maintain and

manage the National Highways in the country. As has been reiterated by the

law courts, the NH Act, 1956 is a complete code in itself. It is trite to say that

the impediment should not be created in the matter of National Highways

which provides the much-needed transportation infrastructure.

11. Section 2 of the National Highways Act, 1956 reads as under:

2. Declaration of certain highways to be national highways.—(1) Each

of the highways specified in the Schedule2*** is hereby declared to be a

national highway.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,

declare any other highway to be a national highway and on the

publication of such notification such highway shall be deemed to be

specified in the Schedule.

(3) The Central Government may, by like notification, omit any highway

from the Schedule and on the publication of such notification, the

highway so omitted shall cease to be a national highway.

(emphasis supplied)

12. Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 inserted by the

amendment of 1997, empowers the Central Government to declare its

2025:APHC:22777

intention to acquire “any land”. The vital condition for exercise of such power

conferred on the Central Government is that it should be satisfied that such

land is required for public purpose of building a national highway or a part

thereof. Section 3B of the Act empowers the person authorized by the central

government to enter upon the notified lands for the limited purpose of survey,

etc. to ascertain its suitability for acquisition for the stated purpose. Section

3C gives an opportunity to any person interested in the land to raise

objections if any on the notified land. The final declaration is issued under

section 3D after hearing all persons who raised objections. Subsequent to

such declaration /notification under section 3D the land vests with the central

government free from all encumbrances and possession is taken under

section 3E upon depositing the compensation amount in the manner

prescribed as per section 3H and as determined under section 3G.

13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Project Director, Project Implementation

Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy & Ors. opined that for issuance of notification

under section 3A, declaration/notification of a particular stretch of road as

national highway is not a condition precedent. Relying on the said decision by

the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Jammu

& Kashmir and Ladakh in Landowners of Village Suthsoo & Ors. v. State

of J&K and Ors. held as follows:

2025:APHC:22777

23. It is, thus, evident that, for issuance of notification under section

3A, declaration/notification of a particular stretch of road as national

highway is not a condition precedent. The Government is

competent and is empowered under section 3A to issue notification

in the official gazette declaring its intention to acquire land for the

building of a national highway. It is common knowledge and is well

spelt out by the provisions of National Highways Act, that what is

notified as a national highway under section 2 is an existing

highway. Section 2 deals with declaring certain existing highways to

be national highways. Thus, from a reading of section 3A along with

section 2, it would become abundantly clear that for issuing a

notification under section 3A by the central government, advance

declaration of a highway, yet to be constructed, as national highway

is not sine qua non. Such declaration presupposes existence of a

highway.”

14. It is, therefore, evident that for issuance of notification under section

3A, notification under section 2(2) is not a condition precedent. The

government is empowered under section 3A to issue a Gazette notification

declaring its intention to acquire land for building a national highway. It is

reiterated that what is declared as national highway under section 2(2) is

an existing highway. Juxtaposing section 3A and section 2 of the NH Act,

1956 it is amply clear that to issue a notification under section 3A prior

declaration under section 2(2) is not an essential condition. Therefore, the

contention of the Petitioners that this is not a national highway and that it

2025:APHC:22777

would not come under the purview of National Highways Act holds no

water.

15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. v. State of

Maharashtra9

observed as follows:

Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few

observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now

launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic

advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We

are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent.

We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the

pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as

“Asian tigers”, e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however,

recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining

such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of

transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial

improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call

for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however,

natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the

acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in the

shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition

is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are

also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time

has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind

while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under

Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of

interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And

(1997)1SCC134

2025:APHC:22777

in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of

justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the

same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders,

more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The

courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while

exercising the power under Article 226 — indeed any of their

discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in

case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of noncompliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall

also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a

lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable.

There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a

wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of

redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing

interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We

hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the

courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.

(emphasis supplied)

16. In another case of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty & Ors.10 the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:

“Here, it is apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed

statutory body having expertise in the field of development and

maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction

of new highways and widening and development of the existing

highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the

country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises

10 (2011) 12 SCC 69

2025:APHC:22777

of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway

development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects

relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after

thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are

prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy

vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all

equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular

project and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger

public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very

limited.

(emphasis supplied)

17. The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in

Manjit Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.11 held that, “this Court is also

sanguine of the fact that where larger interest of public is involved, sanctity of

date of completion of the project for construction and relevance or importance

cannot be ignored on account of few numbered litigants, who are contesting

for the sake of determination of appropriate compensation. The aspect of

public interest over private rights assumes significance.”

18. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the writ courts

have limited scope of judicial review in matters involving technical expertise

and the law courts have time and again reiterated the fact that public interest

11 MANU/PH/0150/2022

2025:APHC:22777

assumes greater significance over private interest and that the Courts must

consider this while exercising discretionary powers under the writ jurisdiction.

19. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that nobody

can dispute that the project is of national importance involving huge public

money and stalling the project any further would not only be against public

interest but also against the interest of the nation. It is to be borne in mind

that “national interest > public interest > private / individual interest”. Thus,

considering all the facts and circumstances and considering various case

laws as mentioned supra, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings

under sec 3A does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and consequently

the declaration under section 3D is also validly made. It is therefore observed

that no useful purpose would be served by quashing the impugned

proceedings, hence, the prayer of the Petitioners to quash the same is

rejected.

20. Having said this, the Petitioners are at liberty to raise the grievances

pertaining to non-consideration of material by the Competent Authority;

quantum of compensation and the other allied issues like multiplication factor

before the appropriate alternate authority as provided under Section 3G(5) of

the National Highways Act, 1956.

2025:APHC:22777

21. The Respondent authorities are expected to complete the project as

expeditiously as possible without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioners to

claim suitable compensation before the appropriate authority.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as

to costs.

The interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. Pending

interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

__________________________

JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

20-06-2025

Note : LR to be marked

B/O

PND

2025:APHC:22777

LAW FOR ALL

LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

Tuesday, November 4, 2025