1. The case of Petitioners is that the National Highways Authority of India has planned the Greenfield Highway NH-163G from Nagpur in Maharashtra to Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh, which is a Category "A" project as per the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. The said highway passes from Warangal to Khanımam to Vijayawada and the impugned alignment was approved on 03.01.2019 by NHAI and subsequently, approved by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020, as reflected in the letter dated 08.02.2024 issued by the NHAI Project Implementation Unit-1, Khammam. The project appears to have been conceived much earlier and yet the process has been undertaken in a manner detrimental to public interest.

               1.1. Petitioners further contend that the alignment crosses Wyra Road on the eastern side of Khammam city and successive notifications under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, namely S.O. 1914(E) dated 17.05.2021, S.Q. 3563(E) dated 29.07.2022, S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022, S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023 and S.O. 909(E) dated 26.02.2024, along with several others, were issued in unknown newspapers without furnishing particulars of land owners and the extent of land proposed to be acquired as mandated under Section 3A(2) of the Act. The impugned alignment is unnecessarily circuitous inasmuch as, to reach Vijayawada from Warangal, the highway need not cross Khammam city or intersect Wyra Road on the eastern side, and instead could have been aligned on the western side of Khammam in a straight line or alternatively routed via Suryapet to Vijayawada National Highway without crossing river Muneru. The longer alignment has been deliberately adopted to benefit certain influential persons holding large extents of land, resulting in loss of thousands of crores of rupees to the public exchequer and adversely affecting the lives and properties of the local population.

               1.2. Petitioners further contend that Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) and the consequential Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023 issued under Section 3D(1) in respect of the stretch from Km 203.8 to Km 220.48 are mutually contradictory, as the villages and survey numbers mentioned therein do not correspond with each other. The Petitioners specifically contend that V. Venkatayapalem village is mentioned in Notification S.O. 4407(E) but does not find place in Notification S.O. 3928, thereby rendering both notifications liable to be set aside.

               1.3. The impugned alignment at V. Venkatayapalem Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District has been finalized in total violation of the Act, the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Respondents had identified three alternative alignments, namely (a) abutting Khammam Municipal Corporation on the east, (b) further east to Khammam, and (c) still further east to option (b), but deliberately selected alignment "A" with mala fide intention to benefit certain politicians, disregarding statutory provisions, the letter of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022, and the health and financial safety of the Petitioners. Petitioners assert that the entire exercise of fixing the alignment from Warangal to Khammam is illegal, mala fide and futile.

               1.4. Petitioners further contend that there has been complete disregard of public concerns and stakeholder participation. The Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, Shri Nama Nageswara Rao, addressed a letter to the Union Road Transport Minister requesting that the alignment be shifted by 5 kilometers away from Khammam town, highlighting several critical issues. As per the EIA Guidelines, particularly paragraph 7.3 at page 29, the project proponent is required to address all environmental concerns raised during public consultation and make appropriate changes in the draft EIA and EMP, but in the present case no meaningful consultation with stakeholders was conducted. Stakeholders including the general public, environmentalists, social workers, educated persons, local bodies, government employees and land losers were not consulted at all. It is contended that several Gram Panchayats adjacent to Khammam city passed resolutions opposing the impugned alignment and issued letters stating that they had no knowledge of the Environmental Clearance obtained by NHAI. During the environmental public hearing, all 15 speakers opposed the alignment, 79 written representations were submitted, and the participants raised slogans against the alignment. The stakeholders have been agitating against the impugned alignment for the past two years through a Joint Action Committee and raised concerns that the highway is not beneficial to the local public, passes through valuable commercial plots, poses danger to health due to pollution, hampers local development plans and affects government offices, educational institutions and human habitations.

               1.5. Petitioners further contend that the District Collector, Khammam, through letter dated 17.05.2022 addressed to the 4th Respondent through the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, highlighted several issues and recommended change of alignment. Despite the said recommendations, Respondents finalized the alignment without consulting Khammam Municipality, Roads and Buildings Department and Gram Panchayats, and the alignment passes very close to the Collectorate, educational institutions and residential areas, thereby violating existing development plans of the region. It is further contended that the State Government had already planned a ring road for Khammam and allocated Rs. 209 crores for land acquisition.

               1.6. Petitioners further contend that the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956 mandates that prior to issuance of notification under Section 3D, an indicative assessment of land acquisition cost based on collector rates should be undertaken and if the cost is prohibitively high, the alignment should be modified. It is contended that Respondents failed to undertake such assessment and did not consult the District Collector, despite the fact that the Collector had indicated that land cost was Rs. 1 Crore per acre in 2018. Petitioners further contend that the impugned alignment passes within a few feet of the new Collectorate, educational institutions, human habitations and valuable commercial sites.

               1.7. Petitioners also contend that Respondents violated the requirement of issuing composite notifications and instead deliberately bifurcated the project into stretches less than 30 kilometers to circumvent statutory provisions and guidelines. The impugned alignment violates Article 300A of the Constitution, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2024, wherein it was held that the right to property includes seven procedural safeguards such as notice, hearing, reasoned decision, public purpose, fair compensation, efficient conduct and conclusion of proceedings, and non-compliance with these requirements renders the acquisition invalid. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty, highway alignments can be interfered with in cases of mala fide and violation of statutory provisions, both of which are present in the instant case. The Petitioners further contend that segmentation of highways is impermissible as held in Civil Appeal Nos. 4035-4037 of 2020 in National Highways Authority of India v. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu.

               1.8. Petitioners further contend that Respondents have not respected judicial process and despite interim orders in Writ Petition No. 3921 and 20359 of 2023, they continued issuing notifications affecting the subject lands. Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 violates Section 3A(2) of the Act by not providing particulars of land and that land owners have been agitating for the past three years. Respondents have deliberately segmented the highway into stretches of less than 30 kilometers, such as 16.68 kilometers, to avoid the requirement of wide consultation under EIA Guidelines applicable to Category "A" projects.

               1.9. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents failed to consider EIA Guidelines relating to existing land use plans, environmental sensitivity areas within 15 kilometers, and proximity to sensitive land uses such as hospitals, schools, places of worship and community facilities, and that the alignment passes close to government offices, educational institutions and residential areas affecting health, safety and livelihood. Petitioners further contend that Respondents violated EIA Guidelines relating to air pollution mitigation, which require avoidance of alignment near housing, schools and hospitals, and also violated noise pollution guidelines requiring development of bypass roads to avoid noise sensitive areas. It is contended that the alignment passes very close to the District Collector's office, which is a noise sensitive area, as well as Harvest Public School, Government Medical College and V. Venkatayapalem Village.

               1.10. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents ignored stakeholder concerns in violation of EIA Guidelines requiring incorporation of public concerns in the EIA and EMP. The impugned alignment is contrary to the notification dated 26.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which mandates that green-field alignments should follow a crow-flight route, maintain distance from habitations and connect towns through spurs. It is also contended, Respondents failed to follow the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways, particularly regarding assessment of land acquisition cost and issuance of composite notifications, and deliberately bifurcated the project to circumvent legal requirements.

               1.11. Petitioners further contend that Respondents acted in haste and with mala fide intention, as reflected in the RTI reply dated 08.02.2024 stating that alignment was finalized after deliberations between the Chairman, NHAI and the State Government, without disclosing the date of such decision. It is further contended that earlier RTI reply dated 26.10.2021 refused disclosure citing an office memorandum dated 04.08.2021 and a High Court judgment dated 09.07.2021 without providing copies thereof. Petitioners further contend that the consultant M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. submitted a cryptic and perfunctory report recommending the impugned alignment without proper quantitative and qualitative analysis, merely referring to "some" or "more" felling of trees.

               1.12. Petitioners further contend that Environmental Clearance Certificate No. EC23A034TG157248 is irrelevant and misleading as it considers only construction phase pollution and not operational pollution. It is contended that Respondents failed to comply with conditions of the Environmental Clearance, including publication in newspapers, dissemination to local bodies and display for 30 days. The Certificate provides for revocation in case of concealment or false data and that the Respondents advertised the clearance only in negligible size in obscure newspapers. Petitioners finally contend that the impugned notifications are liable to be declared illegal, mala fide and violative of statutory provisions, guidelines, Article 300A, Article 14 and principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed, with a consequential direction restraining the Respondents from proceeding further with the impugned alignment.

2. Respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter contending that the National Highways Authority of India is a statutory body constituted by an Act of Parliament and is a Central Government Agency entrusted with the responsibility of development, maintenance and management of National Highways and all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Keeping in view the national and larger public interest, regional development and the objective of improving inter-State connectivity, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and NHAI have accorded approval for the development of the Nagpur-Vijayawada Corridor under Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-1, and that the Warangal-Khammam section of NH-163G forms an integral part of the said corridor. Respondents contend that due care has been taken while fixing the alignment by considering optimal and feasible options in light of prevailing developments and that efforts were made to avoid existing habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures. It is further contended that after reconnaissance survey and detailed deliberations, the present alignment was approved by the competent authority.

               2.1. The allegation of contradiction between the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) and Section 3D(1) of the Act is false and baseless. Due diligence was exercised in finalizing the alignment, taking into account feasibility and prevailing conditions, and that the alignment was approved only after detailed deliberations and survey, while ensuring minimal disturbance to existing settlements, water bodies and religious structures. A meeting was held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, wherein various alignment options for the Nagpur- Vijayawada Corridor, as proposed by the DPR Consultant, were deliberated and Option-1, which is the present alignment bypassing hills and forest sections, was agreed upon. It is further contended that the Land Acquisition Committee of NHAI Headquarters, in its meeting held on 20.08.2020, deliberated upon the matter and accorded approval for the present alignment of the Mancherial-Vijayawada Corridor with a right of way of 45 meters.

               2.2. Respondents further contend that the format adopted for publication of notification under Section 3A of the Act is standardized and uniformly followed for all projects across the country. It is contended that the names of land owners are furnished at the stage of Section 3D notification. The Respondents further contend that at the stage of Section 3A notification, only preliminary assessment is undertaken based on revenue maps and reference points without entering upon the land for detailed survey, and that only after publication of Section 3A notification, the authority is empowered under Section 3B to enter the land for survey. It is further contended that only after joint measurement survey with revenue authorities, the exact details of survey numbers and names of land owners or interested persons can be ascertained.

               2.3. It is true that the District Collector, Khammam vide letter Ref. No. G1/2771/2018 dated 17.05.2022, requested change of alignment. However, it is contended that the said request was duly considered and was responded to by the 4th Respondent through letter dated 13.06.2022, wherein it was categorically stated that change of alignment at that stage was not feasible in view of the progress of land acquisition, environmental clearance and other issues involved in the project. All due procedures were followed in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006 and that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted Environmental Clearance for the development of the four-lane access-controlled Greenfield Highway from Warangal (Chainage 112.240) to Khammam (Chainage 220.480), having a total length of 108.24 kilometers in the State of Telangana, vide EC Identification No. EC23A034TG157248 dated 16.02.2023. The Terms of Reference for the project proposal were duly approved by the Ministry vide letter No. F.No. 10/32/2021-1A.III dated 16.08.2021.

               2.4. It is also contended, in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference, public hearings were conducted in the project area, including at Raghunadhapalem Village in Khammam District and Ayyagaripalle Village in Mahabubabad District, under the supervision of the respective Additional Collectors in the presence of Environmental Engineers of the concerned regions. The issues raised by the public during such hearings were duly addressed and incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan. It is further contended that details of the project were published in "The Hindu" and "Mana Telangana" newspapers on 18.02.2023 and were displayed on the notice boards of the concerned Tahsildars for a period of 30 days. The Respondents also contend that the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 02.10.2022 addressed to the Member Secretary, MoEFCC, Government of India, conveyed that there would be no major impact on forest and environment in Khammam District due to the project.

               2.5. Respondents further contend that the land acquisition for the project is being carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that compensation for land and other affected properties shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The State Government has conveyed its concurrence to the original alignment finalized by NHAI vide letter dated 01.02.2024 and that a fresh notification under Section 3A has been issued vide S.O. 911(E) dated 26.02.2024.

3. Petitioners filed a reply contending that the present writ petition is part of a group of seven writ petitions arising out of the same subject matter and that counters have been filed by the Respondents only in two writ petitions, while counters in the remaining five writ petitions are yet to be filed, though substantial legal issues have been raised therein to assist this Court. The averments in paragraph 5 of the counter, stating that due care was taken in fixing the alignment by considering optimal and feasible options and avoiding existing habitations, settlements, water bodies and religious structures, are wholly false and contrary to the factual position. The Petitioners contend that the Respondents have filed an incomplete counter without addressing the statutory provisions, rules and guidelines referred to in the affidavit of the Petitioners.

               3.1. Petitioners further contend that the assertion of Respondents that human habitations have been avoided is incorrect, as the impugned alignment passes through 625 house sites of 70 square yards each allotted to landless poor persons, as evidenced by Exhibit P-1, and approximately 400 such house sites are directly affected, while the remaining sites are likely to be rendered uninhabitable due to pollution caused by the highway passing adjacent to the small residential plots. Due care has not been exercised in fixing the alignment near the Khammam District Collector's Office at V. Venkatayapalem, which is a noise-sensitive area housing several revenue courts. The Petitioners contend that the alignment passes within a few feet of the said office. It is also contended, the District Collector himself addressed a letter dated 17.05.2022 to NHAI through the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, stating that the alignment was fixed without consulting local authorities and required modification.

               3.2. Petitioners further contend that the Member of Parliament from Khammam addressed a letter dated 11.11.2022 to the Union Transport Minister requesting that the alignment be shifted by at least 5 kilometers in view of local development plans. The Petitioners further contend that the new Government Medical College is situated at a distance of about 120 feet from the alignment, another colony consisting of about 500 house sites of landless poor is situated about 420 feet away, V. Venkatayapalem Village having a population of about 5000 is located at a distance of about 300 meters, the new Khammam District Offices Complex is about 200 feet away, and the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation are within less than one kilometer on the western side.

               3.3. Petitioners further contend that due to the establishment of the new Collectorate and the proposed ring road by the State Government, Khammam town has expanded significantly, and several thousands of house sites have been developed in the area through which the impugned alignment passes. Respondents have kept the Petitioners under continuous uncertainty for nearly six years since 2019, when the first notification under Section 3A(1) was issued, thereby preventing development of the area and causing irreparable loss and hardship to the landowners. The impugned alignment passes through commercial house sites, human habitations, educational institutions and important workplaces, in clear violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways.

               3.4. As per Ex. P-3, the impugned alignment passes near Khanapuram Haveli at a distance of about 400 feet, and that the EIA Guidelines require avoidance of human habitations and noise-sensitive areas either by altering alignment or by constructing bypass roads, which has not been done in the present case. Ex. P-4 demonstrates that the alignment is curved and semi-circular in nature from Warangal to Jakkapudi, which is contrary to Circular No. NH-15017/21/2018-P&M dated 26.02.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which mandates that greenfield alignments should follow a crow-flight route. Notifications under Section 3A(1) have been issued from the year 2019 onwards without conducting surveys, public consultations or obtaining Environmental Clearance, as is evident from the Environmental Clearance Certificate placed on record.

               3.5. Petitioners further contend that they have filed a detailed affidavit referring to the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956, which have not been addressed by the Respondents. Paragraph 7 of the counter is merely a repetition of paragraph 5 and does not require separate reply. The averments in paragraph 8 of the counter are self-contradictory, as it is stated that the Land Acquisition Committee approved the alignment on 20.08.2020, whereas notifications under Section 3A(1) were being issued from 2019 onwards, and the environmental public hearing was conducted only on 15.03.2022. Environmental Clearance for the Khammam to Jakkampudi section was issued on 23.01.2023, and the Terms of Reference were approved only on 26.07.2021, thereby demonstrating inconsistency in the timeline.

               3.6. The letter dated 08.02.2024 issued by the Respondents states that the alignment was approved on 03.01.2019 and further states that the decision was taken after deliberations with the Chairman, NHAI and the State Government, indicating that such deliberations were conducted belatedly, thereby putting the cart before the horse. It is further contend that Respondents ought to have consulted the State Government, local authorities, revenue authorities and municipal bodies and obtained Environmental Clearance prior to issuance of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, but failed to do so. The previous State Government had sought change of alignment through the letter of the District Collector dated 17.05.2022, but due to change in political circumstances, the present alignment is being supported, which demonstrates political influence and mala fide intention. Petitioners further contend that the affected landowners have been subjected to prolonged uncertainty and mental agony for nearly six years and have suffered irreparable loss as they were unable to utilize or develop their lands.

               3.7. Petitioners further contend that the DPR consultant, M/s Enviro Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., submitted a report in November 2021 stating that the baseline study was conducted between April 2021 and June 2021, which contradicts the Respondents claim that alignment and land acquisition proposals were finalized in 2019 and 2020, thereby rendering the process arbitrary and illogical. The said report analyzed three alternative alignments, namely Option 1 (Greenfield alignment passing through multiple towns including Khammam, Wyra, Bonkal, Madhira, G. Konduru and Vijayawada covering 39 villages), Option 2 (Brownfield alignment) and Option 3 (alternative Greenfield alignment), and recommended Option 1 on the basis of lesser tree felling and lower cost, which according to the Petitioners is a tailor-made and arbitrary conclusion lacking proper analysis.

               3.8. Petitioners further contend that the alignment unnecessarily passes through the eastern side of Khammam instead of adopting a straighter route on the western side without crossing river Muneru, thereby increasing cost and adversely affecting public interest. Paragraph 9 of the counter- affidavit is legally unsustainable, as notification under Section 3A(1) is issued inviting objections and it is essential that landowners are informed of the particulars of land proposed to be acquired. Failure to provide such particulars violates Section 3A(2) and principles of natural justice, as landowners cannot effectively file objections without knowing the extent of impact.

               3.9. Respondents' admission regarding the District Collector's letter dated 17.05.2022 and their rejection thereof by letter dated 13.06.2022 is arbitrary and biased, as at that stage no substantial progress had been made except issuance of preliminary notifications, and even Environmental Clearance had not been obtained. For the purpose of Environmental Clearance, the project was divided into two sections, namely Warangal to Khammam and Khammam to Vijayawada, while for the purpose of notifications, the project was segmented into stretches of less than 30 kilometers, namely Tirdhala to V. Venkatayapalem measuring 29.92 kilometers and V. Venkatayapalem to Kodumur measuring 16.66 kilometers, both falling within the jurisdiction of R.DO.. Khammam, which is contrary to guidelines.

               3.10. Petitioners contend that Environmental Clearance for Warangal to Khammam section was obtained on 16.02.2023 vide EC No. EC23A034TG157248 and for Khammam to Vijayawada section on 23.01.2023 vide EC No. EC23A034TG132431, and therefore the rejection of the District Collector's request on 13.06.2022 on the ground of progress of Environmental Clearance is unjustified. The approvals referred to by the Respondents have been obtained without following due process of law and are therefore invalid. The public hearing conducted on 15.03.2022 was belated and ineffective, and that the letter dated 02.10.2022 of the District Collector pertains only to environmental impact on forests and does not address the issue of alignment near the District Offices Complex at V. Venkatayapalem, which requires modification or provision of a bypass.

               3.11. Respondents have not complied with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, EIA Guidelines, Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such guidelines have the force of law and that courts may interfere in cases involving mala fide and violation of statutory provisions, both of which are present in the instant case. Petitioners further contend that Respondents have issued a fresh notification under Section 3A(1) vide S.O. 911(E) dated 26.02.2024 during the pendency of the writ petition, covering the same stretch and involving some of the Petitioners, which amounts to contempt of court and renders the earlier notifications illegal.

               3.12. Petitioners further contend that the said notification pertains to a stretch of 16.66 kilometers from V. Venkatayapalem to Kodumur, forming part of the jurisdiction of R.D.O., Khammam, while the remaining stretch of 29.92 kilometers from Tirdhala to V. Venkatayapalem also falls under the same jurisdiction, and that the entire stretch ought to have been notified as a single unit in accordance with guidelines. Segmentation of the project is impermissible as per judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that Category "A" projects involving more than 30 kilometers and multiple States require strict compliance with procedural requirements including public consultation.

               3.13. Petitioners further contend that the Respondents cannot continue issuing successive notifications under Section 3A from 2019 to 2024 without meaningful progression of the acquisition process and without addressing public objections and subsequent developments. The impugned Greenfield Highway alignment is itself illegal as it provides for a right of way of 45 meters, whereas the prescribed minimum width for Greenfield Highways is 60 meters.

4. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learend Deputy Solicitor General and Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.

5. The primary challenge in the present Writ Petition is directed against the notifications issued under Sections 3A(1) and 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, namely Notification No. S.O. 4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 and Notification No. S.O. 3928 dated 04.09.2023, insofar as they relate to the stretch of land from Km 203.8 to Km 220.48 of the Greenfield Highway NH-163G, covering from Tirdhala Village to Mallemadugu Village in Khammam District, and also the alignment finalized by the Respondents in respect of the said stretch.

6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the National Highways Act, 1956 is a self-contained code governing acquisition of land for national highways. Section 3A(1) of the Act contemplates issuance of a preliminary notification declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire land, and Section 3A(2) requires that such notification shall contain a brief description of the land. Section 3C provides a specific statutory remedy to any person interested in the land to file objections before the competent authority within the prescribed time, and mandates consideration of such objections by way of an adjudicatory process. Thereafter, Section 3D contemplates declaration of acquisition upon consideration of objections.

7. Thus, the statutory scheme clearly envisages a two-stage process, wherein the initial notification under Section 3A is followed by an opportunity to the affected persons to submit objections under Section 3C, and thereafter, a declaration under Section 3D is issued. The Act, therefore, provides an inbuilt mechanism for redressal of grievances relating to acquisition, including issues concerning extent of land, identification of land, adequacy of particulars and objections to alignment. Petitioners have raised a multitude of contentions challenging the impugned notifications and the alignment, including alleged violation of Section 3A(2) of the Act for want of proper particulars, contradiction between notifications under Sections 3A and 3D, non-consultation of stakeholders, violation of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, improper segmentation of the project, mala fide exercise of power, non-consideration of alternative alignments, and procedural irregularities in grant of environmental clearance.

8. On the other hand, Respondents have specifically contended that the alignment was finalized after due deliberations at various levels, including approval in the meeting held on 03.01.2019 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Road Transport and Highways, and approval by the Land Acquisition Committee on 20.08.2020; that environmental clearance was granted on 16.02.2023 after following due procedure including public hearings; and that the acquisition is being undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, several of the issues raised by Petitioners, particularly those relating to the adequacy of particulars in the notification under Section 3A(2), alleged discrepancies between the notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D, the extent of land affected, identification of survey numbers, and the impact of the acquisition on specific properties and localities, are essentially questions of fact which require detailed examination of records, surveys and evidence.

10. Such questions are squarely within the domain of the competent authority under Section 3C of the Act, which is statutorily empowered to consider objections of interested persons, conduct necessary inquiry and pass appropriate orders. The Petitioners, therefore, have an effective and efficacious remedy to raise all such factual and legal objections before the said authority. Further, the grievance of Petitioners that the notification under Section 3A does not contain sufficient particulars as required under Section 3A(2) is also a matter which can be effectively urged before the competent authority, which is required to examine the validity of objections and pass a reasoned order.

11. Insofar as the contention relating to contradiction between the notifications under Sections 3A and 3D is concerned, the same again involves comparison of factual particulars, survey numbers and village details, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution without detailed factual verification. The contentions relating to alignment of the highway, feasibility of alternative routes, alleged deviation from a "crow-flight" route, and the allegation that the alignment has been chosen with mala fide intention to benefit certain individuals, also involve complex factual and technical considerations, including engineering feasibility, environmental impact, cost implications and policy decisions, which are ordinarily within the domain of expert authorities.

12. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to infrastructure projects, particularly highway alignment, is limited, and the Court does not sit in appeal over technical decisions unless there is clear and demonstrable mala fide or violation of statutory provisions on the face of the record. Petitioners have also raised contentions regarding violation of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, alleged deficiencies in public consultation, and non-compliance with conditions of environmental clearance. These issues, by their very nature, involve examination of technical data, expert reports, environmental assessments and compliance records, which are not amenable to summary adjudication in writ proceedings.

13. Moreover, such issues are governed by specialized statutory frameworks and regulatory mechanisms, and appropriate remedies are available before competent authorities/forums in accordance with law. The contention regarding segmentation of the project into stretches of less than 30 kilometers and its alleged violation of guidelines and judicial precedents is also a mixed question of fact and law, which requires detailed examination of the project structure, administrative decisions, and statutory compliance, which is not feasible in the present writ proceedings at this stage.

14. The allegation of mala fides raised by the Petitioners, though serious in nature, is not supported by such incontrovertible material on record at this stage so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, particularly when the statutory remedy under Section 3C is yet to be exhausted. It is a settled principle of law that when a statute provides a complete mechanism for redressal of grievances, the High Court would ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless exceptional circumstances are made out, such as violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or patent illegality.

15. In the present case, this Court does not find that Petitioners have made out such exceptional circumstances at this stage, particularly when the statutory process of filing objections under Section 3C of the Act is available and has not been exhausted. The contention of the Petitioners that they have no alternative remedy cannot be accepted in view of the express provision under Section 3C of the Act, which provides an efficacious remedy to raise all objections, including those relating to legality of the notification, extent of land, and alignment. It is also relevant to note that entertaining the writ petition at this stage, without permitting the statutory authority to consider the objections in the first instance, would result in bypassing the statutory mechanism and would amount to pre- empting the procedure contemplated under the Act.

16. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage, inasmuch as the Petitioners have an effective alternative statutory remedy which they are required to exhaust. Accordingly, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, leaving it open to the Petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 3C of the Act. It is further made clear that in the event Petitioners file objections under Section 3C, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, objectively and independently, without being influenced by any observations made in this order, and shall pass a reasoned order dealing with all contentions raised by the Petitioners.

17. It is also observed that all the contentions raised by Petitioners, including those relating to violation of statutory provisions, guidelines, alleged discrepancies in notifications and alignment, are left open to be urged before the competent authority.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 3C of the Act.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to Petitioners to avail the statutory remedy by filing appropriate objections before the competent authority under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 and to raise all contentions available to them in law. No costs.

20. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.