Common Judgment:

1. Since the issues that arise in the above writ appeals are integrally one and the same, the writ appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

2. These six connected writ appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against six separate orders, all dated 07.04.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3921 of 2023; W.P.No.20359 of 2023; W.P. No. 9109 of 2024; W.P. No. 20230 of 2024; W.P.No.22802 of 2024 and W.P.No.14632 of 2024 respectively. In each of the said writ petitions, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition, relegating the petitioners (appellants herein) to avail the statutory remedies available under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter, 'the NH Act').

3. The appellants in all six writ appeals are land losers whose properties are sought to be acquired for the development of the Nagpur–Amaravati Greenfield Highway (National Highway No. 163G) under the Bharatmala Pariyojana, more particularly, the Khammam–Vijayawada stretch.

4. Heard Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing, Mr. E. Hari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5; Mr. G. Veeraswamy, learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department, appearing for respondent No.6; and Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.7 and perused the record.

Factual matrix

5. The appellants are the owners and possessors of the properties situated in V.Venkatayapalem Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, and the adjoining Villages of Thallada Mandal, Bonakal Mandal, Balepalli Mandal, Pocharam Mandal and Khammam Urban Mandal, all in Khammam District, State of Telangana, through or along which the alignment of the proposed Nagpur–Amaravati Greenfield Highway (National Highway No.163G), under the Bharatmala Pariyojana, is proposed to pass.

6. The lands of the appellants in W.A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2026 (arising out of W.P.Nos.3921 of 2023 and 20359 of 2023) and W.A.Nos. 540 and 542 of 2026 (arising out of W.P.Nos.9109 of 2024 and 22802 of 2024) fall within the stretch extending from Tirdhala Village to V.Venkatayapalem Village, measuring approximately 16.67 kilometres, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Khammam. The said stretch is covered by Notification No.S.O.3563(E), dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, and the subsequent Notification No.909 dated 26.02.2024 issued in continuation of the acquisition proceedings.

7. The lands of the appellants in W.A.Nos.541 and 543 of 2026 (arising out of W.P.Nos.20230 of 2024 and 14632 of 2024) fall within the adjoining stretch extending from V.Venkatayapalem Village to Brahmanapally Village, measuring approximately 29.92 kilometres, also falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the RDO, Khammam, and are covered by Notification No. S.O.4407(E) dated 21.09.2022 issued under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act.

8. The appellants, in their respective writ petitions, questioned the validity of the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, insofar as they relate to their respective lands, as well as the proposed highway alignment, substantially on common grounds, namely, that the impugned notifications failed to comply with the mandate of Section 3A(2) of the NH Act by not furnishing brief particulars of the lands sought to be acquired; that the notifications were issued without jurisdiction; that the alignment was finalized in violation of the applicable environmental norms, the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, and the guidelines governing acquisition of land for National Highways; that there was no meaningful consultation with the local authorities and stakeholders; and that the proposed alignment unnecessarily traversed, or passed in close proximity to, thickly populated residential areas and human habitations, including parts of Khammam Town, despite the availability of feasible alternative alignments.

9. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the concerned authorities in each of the writ petitions and, in W.A.Nos.538 and 539 of 2026, also by the State of Telangana and the District Collector, Khammam. The respondents, while disputing the allegations, asserted that the alignment had been finalized only after detailed reconnaissance surveys, technical evaluation and consideration of various alternative alignments, keeping in view engineering feasibility, safety, environmental concerns and public interest; that the requisite statutory and environmental clearances had been obtained; that public consultations had been conducted; and that the acquisition proceedings had been initiated strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

10. It was further stated that, although the District Collector, Khammam, by communication dated 17.05.2022, had recommended a change in the proposed alignment, the State Government, upon reconsideration of the matter, ultimately conveyed its concurrence to the original alignment by communication dated 01.02.2024, whereupon the project proceeded on the approved alignment.

11. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 07.04.2026 passed in six separate writ petitions, substantially held that the grievances raised by the petitioners principally pertained to the correctness and suitability of the highway alignment and involved disputed and complex questions of fact requiring examination of technical and expert material, which could not appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. The learned Single Judge further held that entertaining the underlying writ petitions at the threshold would amount to bypassing the statutory mechanism contemplated under the NH Act, particularly the remedy available under Section 3C thereof, and substituting judicial opinion in place of expert determination. Consequently, all the writ petitions were disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedies available under the NH Act, including by filing objections under Section 3C thereof.

13. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 07.04.2026 passed in the underlying writ petitions, the appellants has preferred the present writ appeals.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, advanced his submissions assailing the impugned orders dated 07.04.2026 as under:

               i) That the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, insofar as they relate to the lands of the respective appellants, are vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory requirement contained in Section 3A(2) of the NH Act, inasmuch as they do not furnish a brief description of the lands proposed to be acquired. It was contended that, in the absence of such particulars, the affected landowners were deprived of an effective opportunity to submit meaningful objections, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that, although the impugned notifications stated that the land plans and other connected particulars were available for inspection in the office of the Competent Authority, the same were allegedly not available when the affected landowners approached the said office. Consequently, according to the appellants, the statutory right to file effective objections under Section 3C of the NH Act stood substantially impaired, thereby frustrating the very object of Section 3A(2). In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory ((2005) 13 SCC 477).

               ii) That the impugned notifications suffer from lack of jurisdiction, as the acquisition proceedings were, in effect, initiated and controlled by the Project Director, NHAI, who is not the “Competent Authority” within the meaning of Section 3(a) of the NH Act. According to the learned counsel, the RDO, Khammam, alone was competent to discharge the statutory functions contemplated under the Act, and the alleged abdication of such statutory functions vitiates the entire acquisition process.

               iii) That the alignment adopted for both the Tirdhala–V. Venkatayapalem stretch and the V. Venkatayapalem–Brahmanapally stretch is contrary to the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2006, the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways, 2018, and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways governing Greenfield Highway projects. It was argued that the said guidelines require Greenfield highways, as far as practicable, to avoid human habitations, environmentally sensitive and noise-sensitive zones, and to be planned at a reasonable distance from urban settlements with appropriate spur roads providing connectivity. Contrary thereto, the impugned alignment traverses or passes in close proximity to thickly populated residential areas, including Khammam Town and the newly established District Collectorate, resulting in avoidable displacement of residents and acquisition of valuable residential lands.

               iv) That the acquisition proceedings have been deliberately fragmented into multiple notifications covering stretches of less than 30 kilometres, notwithstanding that the proposed Nagpur–Amaravati Greenfield Highway constitutes one continuous project traversing the States of Maharashtra, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. It was contended that such segmentation is not a matter of administrative convenience but a conscious device adopted to avoid the requirement of obtaining prior Environmental Clearance under the applicable Environmental Impact Assessment regime. According to the appellants, the issuance of separate notifications in respect of contiguous stretches amounts to a colourable exercise of statutory power intended to circumvent the mandatory environmental safeguards governing interstate Greenfield Highway projects.

               v) That the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways contemplates issuance of a composite notification in respect of the jurisdiction of a single Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), whereas the respondents, despite the acquisition falling within the jurisdiction of the same Competent Authority, issued multiple notifications in a piecemeal manner. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, such departure from the prescribed procedure further demonstrates arbitrariness and lends support to appellants’ contention that the notifications were intentionally fragmented to defeat the statutory scheme governing environmental appraisal and land acquisition.

               vi) That the District Collector, Khammam, after examining the alignment, had, by communication dated 17.05.2022, recommended a change in the proposed alignment by pointing out serious deficiencies and the adverse impact upon habitations. It was contended that the subsequent communication dated 01.02.2024, whereby the State Government conveyed its concurrence to the original alignment, reflects an arbitrary and unexplained change of opinion and does not cure the illegality inherent in the initial decision-making process. It was further submitted that similar representations had also been made by the local Member of Parliament requesting that the alignment be shifted away from Khammam Town.

               vii) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu and another ((2021) 6 SCC 693), while dealing with the interpretation of sub-ordinate legislation in a mattes arising out of the explanation of National Highways, under the Act, held that a statutory rule or notification forms an integral part of the parent statute, carries the same force and effect, is interpreted on the same principles as the statute itself, and where its language is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its plain and ordinary meaning; and where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the literal rule of interpretation applies, and the words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision further held that while National Highways are vital for economic growth and infrastructure development, projects exceeding 100 km cannot be artificially segmented into shorter stretches to evade mandatory environmental clearance, as such a strategy would defeat the object of the environmental notifications.

               viii) That the learned Single Judge failed to examine or adjudicate the specific challenge relating to the vagueness of the notifications under Section 3A(2), the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the authority issuing the notifications, and the violation of the mandatory statutory provisions and applicable governmental guidelines. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders suffer from non-consideration of material issues; are vitiated by non-application of mind, and consequently warrant interference in appeal.

               ix) That the acquisition proceedings have substantially progressed in respect of both stretches, declarations under Section 3D of the NH Act having already been issued and the proceedings for determination of compensation under Section 3G having either culminated in awards or reached an advanced stage. In such circumstances, relegating the appellants to the statutory remedy under Section 3C, after permitting the acquisition proceedings to progress to such an advanced stage, would render the challenge wholly illusory and infructuous, resulting in irreparable prejudice and irreversible loss to the appellants.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

15. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NHAI, along with the learned Government Pleader for General Administration department, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue has supported the impugned orders dated 07.04.2026 and advanced the following submissions:

               i) That the NH Act, constitutes a complete and self-contained code governing the acquisition of land for National Highways, providing a comprehensive statutory mechanism commencing with the issuance of a notification under Section 3A, consideration of objections under Section 3C, declaration of acquisition under Section 3D and determination of compensation under Section 3G. It was contended that the appellants have an effective and efficacious statutory remedy under the Act and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the threshold.

               ii) That the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) fully satisfy the requirement of Section 3A(2) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, each notification contains, in the Schedule appended thereto, complete particulars of the lands proposed to be acquired, including the survey numbers, nature and classification of the lands, the extent proposed for acquisition and the village particulars, thereby constituting a sufficient “brief description” within the meaning of Section 3A(2) and enabling every interested person to identify the land and submit objections before the Competent Authority.

               iii) That the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction is wholly misconceived. The notifications under Section 3A(1) were issued by the Central Government through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in exercise of the statutory powers conferred under the Act, while the RDO, Khammam, was duly appointed and notified as the Competent Authority for the purposes of receiving objections, conducting the enquiry contemplated under Section 3C and performing the functions assigned under the Act. It is contended that the Project Director, NHAI merely acted as the implementing agency for execution of the project and did not usurp the statutory functions of the Competent Authority.

               iv) That the selection of the alignment for a National Highway project is essentially a matter involving technical expertise and policy considerations resting within the domain of expert bodies. The alignment was finalized after conducting reconnaissance surveys, field inspections and technical evaluation of various alternative alignments, taking into consideration engineering feasibility, traffic requirements, safety parameters, environmental considerations, land availability and overall public interest. It was therefore submitted that, in the absence of any demonstrable mala fides, patent arbitrariness or jurisdictional error, this Court ought not to substitute its opinion for that of the expert authorities in exercise of judicial review.

               v) That the project has been undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and governmental guidelines. It was pointed out that the Terms of Reference were approved on 26.07.2021, Environmental Clearance was granted on 23.01.2023 after due appraisal by the competent authority; public hearings were conducted in the affected project areas; the concerns expressed by the stakeholders were duly considered and incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan; and the final alignment for both stretches was approved only after evaluating various alternative alignments through detailed reconnaissance surveys and technical assessment.

               vi) That the recommendation made by the District Collector, Khammam, by communication dated 17.05.2022 suggesting a change in alignment was duly examined by the competent authorities, but was found to be technically unviable and impracticable. It was submitted that the subsequent communication dated 01.02.2024, whereby the State Government conveyed its concurrence to the original alignment, merely reflected the policy decision taken upon due consideration of all relevant factors and cannot be construed as vitiating the acquisition proceedings or the decision-making process.

               vii) That the learned Single Judge rightly declined to entertain the writ petitions at an intermediate stage of the acquisition proceedings, particularly when the grievances sought to be raised involved disputed questions of fact and technical considerations requiring examination by the statutory authorities in the first instance.

16. We have taken note of the respective submissions urged and perused the material placed on record.

Consideration by this Court

17. The NH Act, is a self-contained enactment providing a comprehensive statutory mechanism governing acquisition of land for National Highways. Section 3A contemplates publication of the notification expressing the intention to acquire land; Section 3C confers upon every person interested in the land a statutory right to file objections within the prescribed period and obligates the Competent Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order thereon; Section 3D provides for the declaration of acquisition; and Section 3G deals with determination of compensation. The statutory scheme, applicable alike to both the Tirdhala–V. Venkatayapalem stretch and the V. Venkatayapalem–Brahmanapally stretch infact, to all acquisitions of land for National Highways, thus constitutes a complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal of the grievances sought to be projected by the appellants.

18. It is well settled that where a statute provides a complete machinery for redressal of grievances, the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily refrains from entertaining a writ petition, particularly when the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact or matters requiring examination by specialised statutory or expert authorities.

19. In the present batch of cases, the principal challenge relates to the correctness of the highway alignment, alleged non-compliance with the statutory and environmental guidelines, and the feasibility of alternative alignments. These are matters involving technical evaluation and factual adjudication, which the statutory authorities are better equipped to consider in the first instance.

20. It is pertinent to note that the submission that the statutory remedy stood rendered inefficacious on account of the acquisition proceedings having progressed to an advanced stage, with declarations under Section 3D having been issued and proceedings under Section 3G having either culminated in awards or reached an advanced stage, does not merit acceptance. The mere progression of the acquisition proceedings cannot render the statutory remedy illusory. On the contrary, the record discloses that the appellants had the opportunity to invoke the statutory remedy at the stage contemplated under Section 3C of the Act. Having failed to effectively avail the remedy at the appropriate stage, appellants cannot contend that the statutory mechanism has become inefficacious merely because the acquisition proceedings have progressed in accordance with law.

21. The principal challenge advanced by the appellants to the impugned notifications, namely, that the notifications do not satisfy the requirement of Section 3A(2) of the NH Act, by furnishing a brief description of the lands proposed to be acquired, and that they suffer from want of jurisdiction, does not merit acceptance. The said contention has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel in respect of the Notification No. S.O.3563(E) dated 29.07.2022, Notification No. 909 dated 26.02.2024, and Notification No.S.O.4407(E) dated 21.09.2022, which are under challenge in the present batch of appeals.

22. A perusal of the aforesaid notifications discloses that each notification is accompanied by a detailed schedule specifying, inter alia, the name of the village, survey numbers, nature and classification of the land, the extent proposed to be acquired and other particulars sufficient to identify the individual parcels of land, and a note that the actual sketch can be verified at the office. Section 3A(2) merely requires that the notification contain a brief description of the land proposed to be acquired so as to enable persons interested to identify the land and submit their objections. Thus, the particulars furnished in the impugned notifications satisfy the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 3A(2).

23. The learned Senior Counsel had in an attempt to elucidate hi submissions on the inadequacy of brief description in the notifications and to draw a comparison had filed Newspapers showing notification under Land Acquisition Act. The notification relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel can be compared to description in a notification under Section 3-D of the Act.

24. The further contention that the land plans and connected particulars were not available for inspection in the office of the Competent Authority, despite the recital contained in the notifications, also cannot be accepted. The said allegation is seriously disputed by the respondents and raises a pure question of fact incapable of adjudication merely on the basis of rival affidavits. More importantly, the appellants have not placed any contemporaneous material demonstrating that they were denied inspection of the records or that any request made by them in this regard was refused. In the absence of such material, it cannot be held that the statutory opportunity contemplated under Section 3C stood frustrated.

25. Further, the reliance placed by the appellants on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Barangore Jute Factory (supra 1), is misconceived, as the said decision turned on a notification which did not contain any description enabling identification of the land proposed to be acquired. Therefore, the factual matrix of the present case is clearly distinguishable and the said decision does not advance the case of the appellants.

26. Further, the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. The notifications under Section 3A(1) have been issued by the Central Government through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. The notifications themselves designate the RDO, Khammam, as the Competent Authority for the purposes of the Act, including the receipt and consideration of objections under Section 3C. The role of the Project Director, NHAI, is confined to that of the implementing or requisitioning agency and does not extend to the exercise of the statutory powers vested in the Competent Authority or the Central Government. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional infirmity in the issuance of the impugned notifications or in the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

27. The appellants contention that the alignment of the proposed Greenfield Highway has been finalized in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2006, the Manual of Land Acquisition for National Highways, 2018; the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways governing Greenfield Highway projects and that the alignment unnecessarily traverses or passes in close proximity to densely populated residential areas, including house sites, the District Collectorate and the Government Medical College, despite the availability of alternative alignments which would have substantially avoided such habitations, does not merit acceptance.

28. It is to be noted that the determination of the alignment of a National Highway is essentially a matter involving technical expertise and administrative policy. Such determination necessarily involves consideration of several factors, including engineering feasibility, topography, traffic requirements, land availability, environmental and social impact, safety parameters, project cost and long-term public interest. The scope of judicial review in such matters is limited to examining whether the decision-making process is vitiated by mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction or violation of any statutory provision. It is not for this Court in writ jurisdiction to substitute its own assessment for that of the expert authorities merely because another view or another alignment may also be possible.

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy and others ((2021) 3 SCC 572), while dealing with acquisition proceedings relating to the Chennai–Krishnagiri–Salem (National Corridor) Eight-Lane Greenfield National Highway (NH-179A and NH-179B), a project undertaken under Bharatmala Pariyojana – Phase I, held that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to land acquisition and the selection of highway alignments for National Highway projects is limited, as such decisions primarily fall within the domain of the competent and expert authorities.

30. The material placed on record discloses that the alignment was finalized only after conducting reconnaissance surveys and evaluating various alternative alignments. The respondents have specifically asserted that the selected alignment was found to be the most suitable having regard to engineering feasibility, project cost, environmental considerations, traffic requirements and the overall public interest. The record further discloses that the Terms of Reference were approved on 26.07.2021, Environmental Clearance was granted on 23.01.2023, public hearings were conducted in the affected project areas, and the concerns raised during the consultation process were duly considered and incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan. The Environmental Clearance was thereafter published in accordance with the prescribed procedure. These materials sufficiently demonstrate that the decision-making process was preceded by due technical evaluation and statutory compliance, and cannot be characterised as arbitrary or lacking transparency.

31. Considerable emphasis was placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants on the communication dated 17.05.2022 addressed by the District Collector, Khammam, recommending a modification of the proposed alignment. Equally, reliance was placed upon the subsequent communication dated 01.02.2024, whereby the State Government conveyed its concurrence to the original alignment. In our considered opinion, these communications reflect the deliberative process undertaken by the executive authorities before the alignment was finalized. The ultimate acceptance of the original alignment upon consideration of the relevant technical inputs and feasibility reports cannot be construed as rendering the decision-making process arbitrary or illegal.

32. Equally untenable is the contention founded on the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. The statutory scheme itself provides an opportunity to every person interested in the land to submit objections under Section 3C of the NH Act pursuant to the publication of the notification issued under Section 3A. The record further discloses that the notifications were published in the Official Gazette and in the newspapers in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act. Whether a particular newspaper enjoys wider circulation than another is not a circumstance which, by itself, is sufficient to invalidate the acquisition proceedings, particularly in the absence of any demonstrated prejudice. The appellants have not established that they were denied the opportunity contemplated under the statute or that any prejudice was occasioned to them on account of the manner of publication.

33. We are equally unable to accept the contention that the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated merely because separate notifications were issued in respect of different stretches of the proposed project. The question whether the project ought to have been treated as a single composite project for the purpose of environmental appraisal, or whether the issuance of separate notifications was intended to circumvent any statutory requirement relating to environmental clearance, involves examination of technical, regulatory and factual considerations, including the scope and applicability of the environmental framework governing the project. Such questions cannot be adjudicated solely on the basis of the allegations made in the pleadings and necessarily require appreciation of expert material. The mere issuance of separate notifications, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of mala fides or colourable exercise of power. A careful reading of the very judgment relied upon by the appellants, namely Pandarinathan Govindarajulu (supra 2), would reveal that the observations made therein, in fact, run contrary to the appellants' contention, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

               20. Having held that adoption of segmentation of a project cannot be adopted as a strategy to avoid environmental clearance impact assessment, the question that arises is whether segmentation of a National Highway beyond 100 km is impermissible under any circumstance. As we lack the expertise of deciding upon this issue, we are of the considered view that an expert committee should examine the permissibility of segregation. After the issuance of a Notification dated 14-9-2006 requiring environmental clearance for new projects and expansion of the existing projects, a High-Level Committee was constituted by the Government of India to review the environmental clearances for Highway expansion projects. As per the Notification dated 14-9-2006, environmental clearance was required for new National Highway and expansion of National Highways greater than 30 km involving additional right of way greater than 20 m and passing through more than one State. One of the terms of the reference to the High-Level Committee was to review the requirement of environmental clearance for Highway expansion projects beyond a distance of 200 km up to the right of way of 60 m. The High-Level Committee recommended that environmental clearance would be required for expansion of National Highway projects beyond a distance of 100 km and if the additional right of way or land acquisition is more than 40 m on existing alignments and 60 m on realignments or bypasses. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and the Notification dated 22-8-2013 was issued, amending the Notification dated 14-9-2006.

               (Emphasis supplied)

34. The Project Director in his Counter Affidavit filed in the writ petition has specifically averred as under:

               11. It is submitted that the Respondents herein have followed the due procedure and submitted requisite documents and reports as per EIA Notification-2006 and MoEF&CC granted Environmental Clearance for "Development of 4-Lane Access Controlled new Greenfield Highway section of Warangal (Ch:112.240) to Khammam (Ch.220.480) Section (Total length 108.24 Km) in the States of EC identification Telangana" vide no.EC23A034TG157248 on 16.02.2023 (Copy enclosed).

In the reply to the Counter Affidavit filed by the appellants in the Writ Petition the said averment has not specifically been controverted. In the light of the environmental clearance for 108.24 Km having been obtained under a single notification, the issue of staggered cleared has been rendered academic.

35. Furthermore, the grievance of the appellants is directed against the choice of the alignment itself. Acceptance of the relief sought would necessarily require this Court to substitute the alignment determined by the expert authorities with one suggested by the appellants. Such an exercise lies beyond the permissible limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the fact that entertaining the writ petitions on such issues would amount to substituting judicial opinion for expert determination, which is impermissible in law.

Conclusion

36. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants have failed to establish any violation of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, any jurisdictional infirmity, or any patent illegality in the notifications impugned in the respective writ petitions and that the learned Single Judge rightly declined to entertain the writ petitions in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the statutory mechanism available under the Act and the nature of the issues raised, which substantially pertain to matters of technical evaluation and policy.

37. Accordingly, all writ appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the respective orders dated 07.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3921 of 2023, W.P.No.20359 of 2023, W.P.No.9109 of 2024, W.P.No.20230 of 2024, W.P.No.22802 of 2024 and W.P.No.14632 of 2024 are affirmed. It is clarified that this common judgment shall not preclude the appellants from availing such remedies as may be available in law. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the acquisition in accordance with law.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.