National Highways Act, 1956 – S. 3G(5) – RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Ss. 23, 26, Sch. I – Compensation – Multiplication factor – Non-consideration of material – Adequate alternative remedy. Grievances of the petitioners relate to (i) non-consideration of material placed before the Competent Authority, (ii) determination of compensation including application of multiplication factor, and (iii) other allied issues connected with quantum of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Held, such issues are to be agitated before the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector in terms of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Petitioners given liberty to work out their remedies before the said alternate forum. Writ petition, insofar as it seeks quashing of notifications / awards / proceedings, disposed of, without costs, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies under Section 3G(5) NH Act.

(A) National Highways Act, 1956 – Ss. 2(2), 3A to 3E, 3G, 3H – Declaration of National Highway – Whether prior declaration under S. 2(2) is condition precedent for issuance of S. 3A notification – Held, No.
For issuance of notification under Section 3A, declaration/notification of a particular stretch of road as a National Highway under Section 2(2) is not a condition precedent. What is declared as a National Highway under Section 2(2) is an existing highway; Section 3A enables acquisition of land for the building of a National Highway. Reading Sections 2 and 3A together, advance declaration of a highway yet to be constructed as a National Highway is not sine qua non for invoking Section 3A. Contention of the petitioners that there was no prior declaration under Section 2(2) and, therefore, the National Highways Act, 1956 is inapplicable to the project, rejected. Consequently, acquisition proceedings under Sections 3A to 3E and declaration under Section 3D held valid.
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy & Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 572, followed; Landowners of Village Suthsoo & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 247, relied on.

(B) National Highways Act, 1956 – Ss. 3A to 3J – RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Large infrastructure / highway projects – Scope of judicial review – Primacy of national and public interest over private interest – Interference by writ court – Limits.
National Highways Authority of India is a statutory authority with expertise in development and maintenance of National Highways. The National Highways Act, 1956 is a self-contained code in regard to acquisition for National Highways. In matters involving technical expertise such as highway alignment, design and implementation of large infrastructure projects, the scope of judicial review is very limited. Courts are “not at all equipped” to decide the viability/feasibility of a particular project or alignment, and must weigh public interest against private interest; in land acquisition for National Highways, national interest > public interest > private/individual interest. Where the project is of national importance, involving huge public money and forming part of an all-India infrastructure programme (Bharathmala Pariyojana), stalling the project would be against national as well as public interest. On facts, the Greenfield Khammam–Devarapalli Highway, part of Bharathmala Pariyojana, held to be a project of national importance; impugned notifications under Section 3A, declaration under Section 3D and consequential proceedings held not vitiated by any illegality or infirmity. Prayer to quash acquisition proceedings refused.
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134; Union of India v. Kushala Shetty & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 69; Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Dastak NGO & Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 362; Electrosheets Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1247; Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., MANU/PH/0150/2022, followed / applied.

(C) National Highways Act, 1956 – S. 3G(5) – RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Ss. 23, 26, Sch. I – Compensation – Multiplication factor – Non-consideration of material – Adequate alternative remedy.
Grievances of the petitioners relate to (i) non-consideration of material placed before the Competent Authority, (ii) determination of compensation including application of multiplication factor, and (iii) other allied issues connected with quantum of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Held, such issues are to be agitated before the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector in terms of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Petitioners given liberty to work out their remedies before the said alternate forum. Writ petition, insofar as it seeks quashing of notifications / awards / proceedings, disposed of, without costs, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies under Section 3G(5) NH Act.