Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs The Union of India & Ors.

“(i)

for quashing the Part of the Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2025 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956,pertaining to Mauza Khairi in the Lakhi Sarai District which has ex-facie lapsed by operation of law and become functus officio due to the Respondents' failure to issue a declaration under Section 3D within the mandatory one-year limitation, and to further quash the arbitrary, conscious, and deliberate realignment of the Mokama-Munger Lane Road Four Project(pertaining to Khairi Mauza) that diverted the route from an open Greenfield corridor to the densely populated urban hub of Lakhisarai.

(ii)

for directing the Respondent Authorities to restore the project alignment to the Alternative Greenfield Corridor situated approximately 500 meters away, which was the original sensible route until its sudden diversion, and to further direct the Respondents to adhere to the "Least Displacement Principle" to save four hundred residential units and established commercial infrastructures from unnecessary destruction in accordance with the constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(iii)

to hold and declare that the current acquisition process is void ab initio and a product of administrative high-handedness for the Respondents' flagrant violation of mandatory statutory prerequisites, including the failure to conduct an on-site Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and the omission to obtain landowner consent, and further declaring that the proposed demolition of the Lakhisarai Police Lines and numerous industrial unitswhich constitute secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, 2002is contrary to national security interests and the financial stability of the public banking sector.

(iv)

for directing upon the Respondents to maintain Status Quo regarding the nature, character, and possession of the subject lands and to further RESTRAIN the Respondents, their agents, and district officials from taking any coercive steps for demolition, dispossession, or construction within the urban hub of Lakhisarai during the pendency of this Writ Application, so as to ensure that the majesty of the law is preserved and the Petitioners are not subjected to irreparable professional, financial, and existential ruin.

(v)

for any other relief(s) including interim protection to the Petitioner's, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

“14.

It is submitted that the issue relating to alignment selection and approval of the Project was specifically considered by the Alignment Approval Committee (AAC) during its meeting held on 28.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 in connection with Agenda-3 concerning the Consultancy Services for preparation of the Detailed Project Report for Four-Laning of the Mokama-Munger Section of NH-80/NH-33 in the State of Bihar. The proceedings of the said Committee clearly demonstrate that the alignment was finalized only after detailed technical deliberations, comparative evaluation of three alignment options, and consideration of engineering, socio-economic, environmental, safety, and financial parameters.

15.

The records of the AAC further reveal that the Committee specifically noted that the existing NH-33 passes through heavily built-up areas including Barhiya, Lakhisarai, Surajgarha, and Munger, and that widening of the existing highway would result in large-scale demolition of structures and substantial social implications owing to continuous habitation and encroachments along the corridor. It was in this background that the proposal for development of a Greenfield 4-Lane alignment with controlled access was considered appropriate and feasible.

16.

It is further submitted that three separate alignment options were placed before the Alignment Approval Committee for consideration. The Committee undertook a comparative evaluation of the said options based on engineering aspects, socio-economic considerations, environmental impact, cost aspects, and safety parameters. Upon such detailed evaluation, Option-2 was found to be the most feasible and suitable alignment having the best weighted average score and least total project cost per kilometer per lane.

17.

The Committee, after due deliberations, specifically observed that the proposed Option-2 comprising a 4-Lane Greenfield alignment with 60-meter Right of Way was the most feasible option for implementation of the Project. The AAC thereafter recommended approval of the proposed alignment and land acquisition plan in respect of the Mokama-Munger Project.

18.

The minutes of the AAC further establish that the alignment selection process was not arbitrary, unilateral, or actuated by mala fides, as alleged by the Petitioners. On the contrary, the alignment was finalized only after extensive technical studies, stakeholder consultations, comparative assessment of alternatives, and deliberations by expert authorities possessing specialized knowledge in the field of highway planning and infrastructure development. The comparison of Alignment options after deletion of Spurs are as following:

Particulars Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Length (Km) 70.000 Km. 81.000 Km. 86.000 Km End 4 Lane 4 Lane 4 Lane configuration Existing Row 30-15 m (on - -2 lanes) End-lane 4 Lane 4 Lane 4 Lane status Configuration Configuration Configuration Access Control. Access Access (including Control Control. common (including portion of common proposed portion of Raxaul Haldia proposed expressway) Raxaul Haldia expressway) Base civil cost 3132 Cr. 2436 Cr. 2632 Cr. (excluding GST) Estimated LA 4257 Cr. 1073 Cr. 1309 Cr. Cost (285 HA) (544 HA) (571 HA) Pre- 618 Cr. 120 Cr. 256 Cr. construction Cost Estimated 9175 Cr. 4538 Cr. 5179 Cr. Total Capital Cost ROBs 1 4 5 Elevated 3 (8 km) 0 0 structures 12 13 15 VUPs/Flyover LVUP 20 7 9 SVUP 20 10 12 MNBs 15 8 16 Number of 4 2 2 MJB Forest Area 45.45 1-2 Ha 54.55 (HA) (Protected (Reserved Forest) Forest) Structure 800 23 30 impacted (including small structure) Preferred Option Recommended by NHAI

19.

The aforesaid records clearly establish that the alignment was finalized after taking into consideration not merely engineering and traffic aspects, but also the larger issue of optimal utilization of public funds and avoidance of excessive expenditure from the public exchequer. The selection of Option-2 was thus based upon an informed and reasoned decision-making process undertaken by expert authorities after comparative evaluation of all relevant parameters and cannot by any stretch be characterized as arbitrary, mala fide, or irrational.

20.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the allegations made by the Petitioners regarding arbitrary diversion of alignment, absence of technical evaluation, or deliberate deviation from public interest are wholly baseless, misleading, and contrary to the official records of the Project. The challenge raised by the Petitioners is essentially directed against a technical and policy decision taken by expert bodies after detailed examination of all relevant considerations, and therefore does not warrant interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

21.

It is submitted that, with the objective of improving logistics movement and strengthening connectivity between the districts of Patna, Lakhisarai, Shekhpura and Munger, the project in question was initiated and entrusted to the NHAI for development of the 4-Laning of the Mokama-Munger Section from Km. 0.000 to Km. 82.400 on National Highway No. 33 in the State of Bihar under the Bharat mala Pariyojana Scheme. The Project Highway commences from National Highway No. 31 near Village Mokamah Khas at Km. 0+000 and terminates near Village Safiyabad Morcha at Km. 82+400 in the State of Bihar, and is being executed on Hybrid Annuity Mode (HAM).

23.

The Project Highway is primarily a Greenfield alignment traversing through various villages situated within the districts of Patna, Lakhisarai, Shekhpura and Munger in the State of Bihar. The alignment commences near Mokameh Khas and passes through, inter alia, the villages of Chintamanchak, Gosaihaon, Ghoswari, Auta, mariachi Nauranga, Chhabisaiya, kathua, Nathanpur, Birupur Nizampur, Rustampur Sharma, Inglish, Babhangawa, patner, bhenora, Neri, Kandarp, Auphapur, Damodarpur, Auraiya, Khairee, Turksingarpur, Ghosikundi, Shoaniya Chak Maheshleta, Basmatiya, Singhchak, Tilakpur, Baltua, Jajbara, Aanandpur, pawai, Bishanpur, Rajpur loshghani ghushat Vishanpur, Kasba Maha, Masudan, Shobhani, Dhanari Narayanpur Chandrapura, Mohmadpur, Pokharwa, Arma, Chhajjupur, Dharmpur, Alinagar, Maheshpur, Chakabdul Nijamat, Safuyabad Inglish, Mungrora, gauripur, jagatpur, Indrukh, Aadampur, Chordigar, Mauidianpur, Vindwara Aaraji, Saffibad, before terminating at Munger near NH-33 at Km. 82+400.

44.

Subsequently, in continuation of the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, namely S.O. 3429(E) dated 25.07.2025 and S.O. 4026(E) dated 02.09.2025, the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, issued declarations under Section 3D of the said Act vide Gazette Notification No. S.O. 1184(E) dated 06.03.2026 and Gazette Notification No. S.O. 420(E) dated 19.03.2026, declaring that the lands specified therein stood acquired for the public purpose of development, maintenance, management, and operation of NH-33. Upon publication of the said declarations, the lands covered under the acquisition proceedings vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances in terms of Section 3D (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

45.

Upon issuance and publication of the declarations under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 vide Gazette Notifications dated 06.03.2026 and 19.03.2026, the lands covered under the acquisition proceedings stood vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances by operation of law in terms of Section 3D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Consequently, all rights, title, and interests in respect of the acquired lands stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government, and the acquisition proceedings attained finality.

49.

That the project alignment and acquisition proceedings are being undertaken strictly in accordance with the statutory framework prescribed under the National Highways Act, 1956. The acquisition proceedings are for a recognized public purpose, namely development of National Highway infrastructure, and therefore satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 300A that deprivation of property must be by authority of law. It is settled law that the right to property, though constitutional in character under Article 300A, is not an absolute right and property can validly be acquired by the State in accordance with procedure established by law and for a legitimate public purpose. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596., the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that acquisition of land for public purpose under a valid statutory framework constitutes lawful deprivation within the meaning of Article 300A and that courts ought not to interfere with acquisition proceedings except upon clear illegality or violation of statutory safeguards.

51.

That the allegations regarding "colorable exercise of power", "administrative malice", and deliberate diversion of are denied alignment to favour private individuals Allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with specificity and supported by clear and cogent material particulars. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, (1953) 2 SCC 178, held that when an action undertaken by the state is within the legislative and administrative competence of the entity, then mere assertion of malice does not make the action invalid.Bald assertions and generalized allegations unsupported by documentary material cannot constitute a valid ground for judicial interference in infrastructure projects undertaken under statutory authority.

53.

That the scope of judicial review in matters concerning infrastructure alignment and technical planning is limited to examining the legality of the decision-making process and not the comparative merits of alternate alignments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69, held that "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 subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited."

(emphasis added)

8.

The contents of the corresponding paragraph 8 of the writ petition are denied as being false, misleading, and contrary to the record. The allegation that no declaration under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been issued within the prescribed period of one year is wholly incorrect. It is submitted that pursuant to the notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, namely Notification No. S.O. 3429(E) dated 25.07.2025 and Notification No. S.O. 4026(E) dated 02.09.2025, the Central Government has duly issued declarations under Section 3D of the Act vide Gazette Notification No. S.O. 1184(E) dated 06.03.2026 and Gazette Notification No. S.O. 1420(E) dated 19.03.2026 within the statutory framework prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, the contention of the Petitioners that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by operation of Section 3D(3) of the Act is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. It is further submitted that upon publication of the declarations under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the lands covered under the acquisition proceedings stood vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances by operation of Section 3D(2) of the Act. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings attained finality and the Petitioners ceased to retain any proprietary right over the acquired lands except entitlement to compensation and other statutory benefits, if any, in accordance with law. The allegation that the Respondents are attempting to revive any "dead" notification or facilitate any alleged illegal land grab is wholly baseless, malicious, and emphatically denied.

28.

The contents of paragraph 28 under reply are vehemently denied and disputed. The allegation that the Respondents refused to consider a sustainable alternative is factually incorrect and contrary to the record. The alignment was finalized after comparative consideration of alternatives by expert authorities, including the Alignment Approval Committee. Environmental, engineering, financial, safety and social considerations were part of the alignment evaluation process. The project records show that the selected alignment was found feasible after considering relevant parameters, including forest impact and structure impact. The Petitioners have not placed any expert material to establish that the alternative suggested by them is technically superior, environmentally preferable, financially viable, or consistent with the overall project objective. A private suggestion of an alternate route cannot override a duly considered technical decision taken by competent authorities. The allegation of arbitrariness is therefore denied.

19.

We have considered the respective submissions. Sections 3-A, 3-C and 3-D, which have a bearing on this case, read as under:

"3-A. Power to acquire land, etc.-(1)

Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land.

(2)

Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land.

(3)

The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language.

3-C. Hearing of objections. (1) Any

person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section.

(2)

Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, 'legal practitioner' has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961).

(3)

Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final.

3-D. Declaration of acquisition.-(1)

Where no objection under sub-section (1) of Section 3-C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 3-A.

(2)

On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

(3)

Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A for its acquisition but no declaration under sub-section (1) has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect:

Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.

(4)

A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other authority."

20.

The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that once the Central Government is satisfied that any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, then, it shall declare its intention to acquire such land by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette giving brief description of the land. The substance of the notification is also required to be published in two local newspapers of which one has to be in a vernacular language. Any person interested in the land can file objection within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. Such objection is required to be made to the competent authority in writing. Thereafter, the competent authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of hearing either in person or through a legal practitioner. This exercise is to be followed by an order of the competent authority either allowing or rejecting the objections.

21.

Where no objection is made to the competent authority in terms of Section 3-C(1) or where the objections made by the interested persons have been disallowed, the competent authority is required to submit a report to the Central Government, which shall then issue a notification in the Official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3-A(1). On publication of declaration under Section 3-D(1), the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of Section 3-D provides that where no declaration under sub-section (1) is published within a period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 3-A(1), the said notification shall cease to have any effect. By virtue of the proviso to Section 3-D(3), the period during which any action or proceeding taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 3-A(1) remains stayed by a court shall be excluded while computing the period of one year specified in Section 3-D(3).

“28.

Here, it will be 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 the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises 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 subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.”