Case Note & Summary
This writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, arose from a challenge to the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi, rejecting objections filed under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners, nineteen residents of Village Dhuarmala, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, held agricultural land that was included in a notification dated 29.10.2024 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the building, widening, maintenance, management and operation of NH-248A from Km 24.200 to Km 58.950 in District Alwar. Their specific grievance was against the proposed establishment of a Rest Area at Km 36/00 on NH-248A (Shahpura-Alwar section) over their land, contending that the site fell within one kilometre of the Critical Tiger Habitat of Sariska Tiger Reserve and within a protected forest area notified by Forest Department notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012 and restricted by Government of Rajasthan order dated 31.03.2015. The petitioners argued that their objections under Section 3C were not against acquisition per se but against the impermissible use of the land for a Rest Area in an ecologically sensitive zone, and they sought quashing of the acquisition proceedings to that extent and relocation to an alternative site. Official inter-departmental correspondence showed that the Revenue/Land Acquisition Officer on 31.01.2025 had acknowledged that the land fell within one kilometre of the Critical Tiger Habitat and recommended shifting the Rest Area; subsequent communications dated 13.02.2025, 19.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 proceeded on the basis of excluding the original site; the District Collector directed revisiting the possibility of shifting; and a committee on 23.09.2025 unanimously recommended Khasra No.1933 in Village Bandrole as more suitable. However, the National Highways Authority later sought consent to proceed at the original site, and the Competent Authority rejected the objections on 06.10.2025. The respondents contended that the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact and was not maintainable under Article 226; that the Forest notifications did not prohibit acquisition; that the Rest Area was a public utility facility forming part of highway infrastructure; that inter-departmental communications were advisory and created no vested rights; and that forest clearance was a separate statutory mechanism. The court was called upon to examine the validity of the rejection order, the applicability of environmental restrictions, and the scope of judicial review. The provided judgment text does not include the final analysis or decision of the court.
Headnote
A) National Highways Act - Objections to Land Acquisition - Scope of Section 3C - National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 3A and 3C - Petitioners objected to use of land for Rest Area within restricted forest zone, arguing Section 3C confers statutory right to object to use beyond Section 3A purpose; official correspondence acknowledged objection and recommended shifting - The court was called upon to decide whether the limited statutory right includes objection to impermissible use, not merely compensation or private inconvenience (Paras 1-10, 17-18).
B) Environmental Law - Protected Forest/Critical Tiger Habitat - Restrictions within one kilometre - Forest notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012; Government order dated 31.03.2015 - Proposed Rest Area at Km 36/00 NH-248A fell within one kilometre of Critical Tiger Habitat; Forest Department reiterated restriction on new commercial, industrial and land-conversion activities - The court was required to consider whether labelling as public utility could circumvent binding restrictions (Paras 3-9, 17).
C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Disputed Questions of Fact - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Respondents contended writ petition raises disputed questions not amenable; petitioners relied on admitted official records including communications and committee recommendation - The court was called upon to decide maintainability where official records demonstrate departure from recommendations (Paras 11-15, 18).
D) National Highways Act - Acquisition vs Use - Separate Environmental Clearance - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3C - Respondents argued Forest notifications do not prohibit acquisition, only use, and forest clearance is separate mechanism; petitioners argued environmental restrictions bind the State in choosing location - The issue remained whether acquisition proceeding could be challenged on environmental grounds at Section 3C stage (Paras 12-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 is legally valid; whether the proposed Rest Area at Km 36/00 on NH-248A falls within restricted zone of Critical Tiger Habitat and violates forest notifications and Government order dated 31.03.2015; whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable despite disputed questions of fact; whether acquisition for a public utility Rest Area can proceed without separate notification under Section 3D for the Rest Area portion
Law Points
- Section 3C of National Highways Act
- 1956 confers statutory right to object to use of land for purposes beyond Section 3A
- Government order dated 31.03.2015 restricts new commercial/industrial activities and land conversion within one kilometre of protected area boundary
- Forest notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012 notify protected forest and Critical Tiger Habitat
- administrative inter-departmental communications do not create vested rights unless binding
- judicial review under Article 226 can examine admitted official records
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (08) 56
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15782/2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anand Sharma
Akshay Sharma Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Mr. Arnav Singh Advocate; Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi Additional Government Counsel; Mr. Aditya Singh Deputy Government Counsel; Mr. Vidhyadhar Gathala Additional Government Counsel; Ms. Vijay Laxmi Advocate for Respondents
Buddalal S/o Prabhudayal and 18 Others (All residents of Village Dhuarmala, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, Rajasthan, through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Babulal Prajapat)
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Jaipur; District Collector, Alwar; Project Director-Cum-Executive Engineer, PWD National Highway Division-I, Jaipur; Competent Authority-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi; Deputy Conservator of Forest, Tiger Project Sariska; Tehsildar, Tehsil Thanagazi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Competent Authority under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the proposed Rest Area within Critical Tiger Habitat
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi rejecting their objections under Section 3C; quashing of acquisition proceedings to the extent they concern the proposed Rest Area at Km 36/00 on NH-248A; and a direction to relocate the Rest Area to an alternative site
Filing Reason
Petitioners' agricultural land in Village Dhuarmala was included in the acquisition notification dated 29.10.2024 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 for NH-248A widening; the proposed Rest Area at Km 36/00 fell within one kilometre of the Critical Tiger Habitat of Sariska Tiger Reserve and within a protected forest area, violating forest notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012 and Government order dated 31.03.2015; the Competent Authority rejected their objections without properly considering the availability of a feasible alternative site
Previous Decisions
Competent Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi passed order dated 06.10.2025 rejecting the petitioners' objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956. No prior court decision is mentioned in the provided text.
Issues
Whether the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 is legally valid
Whether the proposed Rest Area at Km 36/00 on NH-248A falls within restricted zone of Critical Tiger Habitat and violates forest notifications dated 28.12.2007 and 06.07.2012 and Government order dated 31.03.2015
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable despite the respondents' contention of disputed questions of fact
Whether acquisition of land for a public utility Rest Area can proceed without a separate notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the Rest Area portion
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that their objections were not against acquisition per se but against the use of their land for a Rest Area at a location falling within the restricted zone of the Critical Tiger Habitat of Sariska Tiger Reserve, and that Section 3C confers a statutory right to object to use of land for purposes beyond Section 3A; they relied on admitted official correspondence, including the letter dated 31.01.2025 recommending shifting and the committee report dated 23.09.2025 recommending Khasra No.1933 in Village Bandrole; they contended that binding environmental restrictions cannot be circumvented by labelling the Rest Area as a public utility facility.
Respondents argued that the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact and was not maintainable under Article 226; that the order dated 06.10.2025 was passed after considering objections under Section 3C; that Forest notifications do not prohibit acquisition under the National Highways Act; that the Rest Area was a public utility facility and not a commercial establishment; that inter-departmental communications were advisory and created no vested rights; that forest clearance was a separate statutory mechanism; and that acquisition was for a public purpose with compensation payable.
Judgment Excerpts
questioning the legality of order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Thanagazi... whereby their objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 came to be rejected
Vide letter dated 31.01.2025, the Revenue/Land Acquisition Officer specifically informed the concerned authorities that the proposed land for the Rest Area falls within one kilometre of the Critical Tiger Habitat of Sariska Tiger Reserve and referred to the Government of Rajasthan's order dated 31.03.2015
A committee inspected alternative sites on 23.09.2025 and unanimously recommended Khasra No.1933 situated in Village Bandrole as being more suitable for development of the Rest Area.
Procedural History
Notification dated 29.10.2024 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 for NH-248A from Km 24.200 to Km 58.950; declaration under Section 3D issued for widening of highway; petitioners submitted objections under Section 3C; Revenue/Land Acquisition Officer letter dated 31.01.2025 recommended shifting Rest Area; Executive Engineer request dated 13.02.2025 for alternative proposal; communications dated 19.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 proceeded on basis of excluding original site; Regional Officer communication dated 14.05.2025 described Rest Area as public utility; Forest Department communication dated 17.09.2025 reiterated restrictions; District Collector directed revisit; committee inspected alternative sites on 23.09.2025 and recommended Khasra No.1933 in Village Bandrole; National Highways Authority communication dated 01.10.2025 sought consent for original site; directions dated 03.10.2025 for original site; Competent Authority rejected objections on 06.10.2025; writ petition filed.
Acts & Sections
- National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3A, Section 3C, Section 3D
- Constitution of India: Article 226
