Case Note & Summary
These four writ petitions were heard together by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and disposed of by a common order dated 24 February 2026. The petitioners, owners of various agricultural lands in YSR Kadapa district, challenged notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquisition of their lands for the proposed Bangalore-Mydukuru (Kadapa)-Amaravati/Vijayawada Green Field Corridor. The first three petitions concerned a Section 3A notification published in Praja Sakthi daily dated 21 November 2022 and a Section 3D declaration published in Gazette S.O.1366(E) dated 22 March 2023. The fourth petition concerned a later notification published in Hans Daily dated 14 August 2023 and a declaration in S.O.443(E) dated 2 February 2024. The petitioners contended that they submitted objections but that the competent authority did not conduct an enquiry or afford a hearing under Section 3C, that the lands fell between a double trumpet interchange and would be used for future commercial activity rather than highway formation, that the notifications omitted names of owners, and that newspaper publication lacked sufficient circulation in the affected area. In W.P. No. 14414 of 2023, the landowners stated they came to know of the acquisition only after their application for conversion of agricultural land was rejected. The National Highways Authority of India, the second respondent, filed counter affidavits stating that the competent authority was appointed, that objections were received after the 21-day period and thus not considered, that the only objections raised concerned compensation, that the lands between interchanges are part of the highway under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, that the project is an access-controlled highway, that environmental clearance was obtained on 2 February 2024 before construction, and that the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. The competent authority and Joint Collector also filed counter affidavits explaining that the government ordered formation of the express highway covering 124 km across 12 mandals and 49 revenue villages, that notifications under Sections 3A, 3D and 3G were published and awards passed for all villages except Velpula village due to an interim order, and that Section 3A(2) requires only a brief description of the land, not names of owners. The High Court had earlier passed a status quo order on 10 May 2023 in I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 10084 of 2023, keeping further land acquisition proceedings pending. The excerpt provided does not include the court's analysis or final decision, and therefore the outcome of the writ petitions cannot be stated from the available text.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Procedural Compliance - Opportunity of Hearing - National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 3A, 3C, 3D - Petitioners challenged Section 3A and 3D notifications on ground that objections were not considered with opportunity of hearing as required by Section 3C; respondents asserted objections were received after 21-day period and therefore not to be considered; final court reasoning not included in the excerpt (Paras 2-7). B) Land Acquisition - Purpose of Acquisition - Inclusion of Double Trumpet Interchange - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3A; Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002 - Petitioners contended lands between double trumpet interchange would be used for commercial activity, not highway formation; respondents stated such lands are part of the highway for an access-controlled highway and acquired in public interest; final determination not provided (Paras 5(b), 7(b), 7(d)). C) Land Acquisition - Notification Contents - Owner Details and Brief Description - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3A(2) - Petitioners claimed notification lacked owner names, defeating the purpose of objections; respondents argued Section 3A(2) requires only a brief description of land, not owner names, and later Section 3D notification includes owner names; no final order in excerpt (Paras 5(c), 8). D) Land Acquisition - Publication Requirements - Newspaper Circulation - National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 3A, 3C - Petitioners alleged publication in newspapers without sufficient circulation vitiated the notification; respondents did not explicitly address circulation except stating publication in two daily newspapers; court's final view not stated (Paras 5(d), 7(a)). E) Land Acquisition - Alternative Remedy and Judicial Restraint - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3G(5) - Respondents argued petitioners could approach arbitrator for compensation disputes and courts should refrain from interfering in national importance projects; no final decision in the available text (Paras 7(f), 7(g)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquisition of lands for the Bangalore-Mydukuru (Kadapa)-Amaravati/Vijayawada Green Field Corridor were illegal and arbitrary due to alleged non-compliance with Section 3C hearing requirements, inclusion of interchange lands for non-highway purposes, non-mention of owner names, and inadequate newspaper publication.
