National Highways Act, 1956 — Ss. 3-A, 3-C, 3-D, 3-G — Publication of notification — Requirement of publication in two local newspapers — No statutory requirement as to minimum circulation — Publication in ‘Praja Sakthi’ (Telugu) and ‘The Hindu’ (English) — Valid compliance — Challenge on ground of low circulation — Rejected. Land acquisition — Allegation of mala fides — Bald and vague allegations — Failure to implead persons against whom mala fides alleged — Absence of particulars — Presumption of bona fides — Acquisition for public purpose — Judicial review limited. Judicial review — National highway projects — Courts not equipped to decide alignment or feasibility — Interference only when action ex facie contrary to law or tainted by mala fides — Refusal to interfere. (Paras 16–18, 23–29, 31)

advocatemmmohan

National Highways Act, 1956 — Ss. 3-A, 3-C, 3-D, 3-G — Publication of notification — Requirement of publication in two local newspapers — No statutory requirement as to minimum circulation — Publication in ‘Praja Sakthi’ (Telugu) and ‘The Hindu’ (English) — Valid compliance — Challenge on ground of low circulation — Rejected.

Land acquisition — Allegation of mala fides — Bald and vague allegations — Failure to implead persons against whom mala fides alleged — Absence of particulars — Presumption of bona fides — Acquisition for public purpose — Judicial review limited.

Judicial review — National highway projects — Courts not equipped to decide alignment or feasibility — Interference only when action ex facie contrary to law or tainted by mala fides — Refusal to interfere.

(Paras 16–18, 23–29, 31)

---

FACTS (As Recorded by the Court)

1. The writ petitions were filed questioning:

   • Laying of National Highway road through petitioners’ lands allegedly without notification under Section 3-A or declaration under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956; and

   • Public notice issued under Section 3-G(3) and (4) calling upon petitioners to appear for determination of compensation. (Paras 2–5)

2. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.5664 & 42024 of 2022 owns Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.Nos.77/1E-2B & 77/1D-2C, Kothapallayam Village.
   The petitioner in W.P.Nos.35081 & 42025 of 2022 owns Ac.0-21 cents in Sy.No.194/5B/2, R. Mallavaram Village. (Para 2)

3. Petitioners contended that:

   • Earlier Section 3-A notification dated 18-06-2018 for NH-71 did not include their lands;

   • Yet road was laid through their lands allegedly to protect interests of adjacent land owners;

   • Subsequent notifications dated 03-11-2022 (3-A) and 15-12-2022 (3-D) were issued surreptitiously and published in a newspaper with minimal circulation. (Paras 4–6)

4. Counter-affidavits filed in W.P.Nos.42024 & 42025 of 2022 stated that:

   • Notifications under Sections 3-A and 3-D were issued vide Gazette Notifications dated 03-11-2022 and 15-12-2022;

   • Substance of 3-A notification was published in Praja Sakthi (Telugu) and The Hindu (English) on 06-12-2022;

   • No objections were filed by petitioners;

   • Acquisition was for public purpose, namely widening of NH-71. (Para 7)

---

ISSUES FRAMED BY THE COURT

1. Whether the notifications under challenge are unsustainable for non-compliance with procedure under the National Highways Act, 1956?

2. Whether the acquisition is vitiated by mala fides, as alleged by the petitioners? (Para 13)

---

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

Issue No.1 — Validity of Section 3-A Notification (Paras 14–17)

5. The Court examined Section 3-A(3) of the Act and held that:

   • The statute requires publication of the substance of notification in two local newspapers, one in vernacular language;

   • There is no statutory requirement of minimum circulation. (Paras 15–16)

6. Since publication was made in Praja Sakthi (Telugu) and The Hindu (English):

   • Statutory compliance was complete;

   • Objection regarding low circulation or earlier publication in ‘Sakshi’ was held irrelevant. (Paras 16–17)

7. The Court therefore rejected the challenge to the notification dated 03-11-2022. (Para 17)

---

Issue No.2 — Allegation of Mala Fides (Paras 18–27)

8. The Court held that:

   • Allegations were vague and bald;

   • Adjacent land owners were not impleaded;

   • No officers were made parties eo nomine;

   • No supporting material was placed. (Para 18)

9. The Court distinguished Gurdial Singh and Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd., holding that:

   • Those cases involved specific pleadings and factual foundation;

   • Such foundation was absent in the present case. (Paras 19–22)

10. Relying on Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd., Ajit Kumar Nag, and Nandlal Jaiswal, the Court reiterated that:

    • Heavy burden lies on person alleging mala fides;

    • Administrative action is presumed bona fide;

    • Courts must be slow in recording findings of mala fides. (Paras 23–27)

11. The plea of mala fides was accordingly rejected. (Para 27)

---

PUBLIC PURPOSE & SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

12. The Court noted that:

    • Respondents asserted acquisition was for public purpose (widening of NH-71);

    • Petitioners did not file any reply to rebut the same. (Para 28)

13. Relying on Kushala Shetty, the Court held that:

    • NHAI is an expert body;

    • Courts cannot examine feasibility or alignment of highway projects;

    • Judicial review is extremely limited. (Paras 29–30)

---

FINAL ORDER

14. The Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

15. All the writ petitions were dismissed. (Para 31)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Publication of a Section 3-A notification under the National Highways Act in two local newspapers—one vernacular and one English—satisfies statutory requirements; absence of minimum circulation criteria and bald allegations of mala fides without pleadings, particulars, or impleadment cannot vitiate land acquisition undertaken for public purpose.