Case Note & Summary
The writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench arose from land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 for widening and maintenance of NH-248A in District Alwar. Petitioners, residents of Village Dhuarmala and holders of agricultural land through a power of attorney, challenged the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi rejecting their objections under Section 3C of the Act. They also challenged the proposal to establish a Rest Area at Km 36/00 on the Shahpura-Alwar section over land situated in Village Dhuarmala and sought relocation to an alternative site. Notification under Section 3A was issued on 29.10.2024 for building, widening, maintenance, management and operation of NH-248A from Km 24.200 to Km 58.950. Petitioners submitted objections before the competent authority, contending that the proposed Rest Area site fell within one kilometre of the Critical Tiger Habitat of Sariska Tiger Reserve and was covered by Forest Department notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012. They relied on Government of Rajasthan order dated 31.03.2015 restricting new commercial, industrial and land-conversion activities within one kilometre of the protected area boundary. Official inter-departmental correspondence indicated that a Revenue/Land Acquisition Officer on 31.01.2025 recommended shifting the Rest Area; an Executive Engineer on 13.02.2025 requested a fresh alternative proposal; further communications on 19.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 proceeded on the basis of excluding the original site. A committee inspected alternative sites on 23.09.2025 and unanimously recommended Khasra No.1933 in Village Bandrole as more suitable. However, the National Highways Authority later sought to proceed with the original site, citing a communication dated 14.05.2025 from the Regional Officer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which described the Rest Area as a public utility facility comprising restrooms, parking, drinking water, emergency, kiosk, petrol pump and other facilities. The competent authority ultimately rejected the objections on 06.10.2025. Petitioners argued that the authorities could not disregard binding environmental restrictions by labelling the facility a public utility and that Section 3C entitled them to object to the use of the land. Respondents contended the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact, that forest notifications did not prohibit acquisition under the Act of 1956, that the order dated 31.03.2015 restricted land conversion and commercial activities but not acquisition, that the Rest Area was a public utility not a commercial establishment, that administrative communications did not create vested rights, and that forest clearance was governed by a separate mechanism. The judgment text provided does not include the final decision or operative directions of the court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Availability of judicial review against order rejecting Section 3C objections - Constitution of India, Article 226; National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 3A, 3C - Petitioners challenged order dated 06.10.2025 rejecting objections to acquisition for Rest Area; respondents contended disputed questions of fact ousted writ jurisdiction; court considered whether the challenge raised legal issues regarding environmental restrictions and statutory compliance. (Paras 1, 11) B) Environmental Law - Protected Forests and Critical Tiger Habitat - Restrictions on commercial/industrial activities and land conversion within one kilometre of Sariska Tiger Reserve - Government of Rajasthan order dated 31.03.2015; Forest Notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012 - Petitioners argued proposed Rest Area at Km 36/00 NH-248A fell within restricted zone and authorities could not circumvent restrictions by labelling it public utility; court analyzed whether statutory objections under Section 3C encompassed objections to use of land contrary to environmental restrictions. (Paras 3, 9-10) C) Administrative Law - Inter-departmental communications and advisory recommendations - Binding nature of committee recommendation to shift Rest Area - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3C - Official correspondence from 31.01.2025 to 06.03.2025 indicated authorities initially accepted need to exclude original site and identify alternative; committee on 23.09.2025 unanimously recommended Khasra No.1933 Village Bandrole; respondents argued communications were administrative and advisory, not creating vested rights; court considered whether competent authority could disregard consistent official recommendations. (Paras 4-8, 14) D) Statutory Interpretation - Scope of Section 3C objections - Distinction between acquisition and subsequent use of land - National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 3A, 3C, 3D - Petitioners contended Section 3C conferred statutory right to object to use of land for purposes not contemplated by Section 3A; respondents argued acquisition itself not prohibited by forest notifications and land use after acquisition governed by separate mechanism; court examined the permissible grounds for objection under Section 3C. (Paras 10, 12, 15) E) Public Purpose - Rest Area as public utility facility - Classification of highway Rest Area with restrooms, parking, drinking-water, kiosk, petrol pump - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3A - Respondents characterized proposed Rest Area as public utility forming part of highway infrastructure, not commercial establishment; petitioners argued inclusion of kiosk and petrol pump rendered it commercial within restrictions; court considered whether public utility classification could override environmental restrictions. (Paras 6, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi rejecting objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 is legally sustainable; whether the proposed Rest Area at Km 36/00 on NH-248A within one kilometre of the Critical Tiger Habitat of Sariska Tiger Reserve violates environmental restrictions; and whether the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Section 3C of National Highways Act
- 1956 confers statutory right to object to acquisition and use
- Government order dated 31.03.2015 restricts new commercial
- industrial and land conversion within one kilometre of Critical Tiger Habitat
- Notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012 declare area as protected forest
- inter-departmental communications do not create vested rights
- forest clearance governed by separate statutory mechanism
- public utility facility classification may not override environmental restrictions
