Arwind Solanki vs Union Of India

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

1
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T I N D OR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 40027 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC020386912025
ARWIND SOLANKI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave- Dy. Solicitor General for the respondent
No.1/ Union of India.
Shri Jayant Upadhyay – Advocate for the respondent Nos.2
and 3/NHAI, through VC.

WITH

WRIT PETITION No. 39499 of 2025

CNR No.: MPHC020380192025
RANJEET DANDIR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave- Dy. Solicitor General for the respondent
No.1/ Union of India.
Shri Jayant Upadhyay – Advocate for the respondent Nos.2
and 3/NHAI, through VC.


WRIT PETITION No. 40016 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC020386832025
SANTOSH DANDIR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

2
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave- Dy. Solicitor General for the respondent
No.1/ Union of India.
Shri Jayant Upadhyay – Advocate for the respondent Nos.2
and 3/NHAI, through VC.

Reserved on : 24.09.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
…........................................................................................................
These petitions having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Per : Justice Subodh Abhyankar
1. This order shall govern the disposal of all the connected writ
petitions, regard being had to the identical issues involved.
2. For brevity, the facts are taken from WP No.40027/2025. This
writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
“In view of the facts stated and grounds mentioned above, this
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue:
“a. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ to set aside the
impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1) so far as it
relates to the petitioner’s aforementioned lands.
b. The Official Gazette CG-DL-E-17022025-261093, of NH347-B,
with respect to the land of the petitioner be set aside.
c. Respondents may kindly be directed to make appropriate
changes in the alignment of NH 347-B, so as to save land of the
petitioner and similarly situated land of other persons.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

3
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
d. In the alternative, an independent committee of experts
including a technical member from the Shri Govindram Seksaria
Institute of Technology and Science (SGITS),Indore, be constituted
to examine and recommend the alignment of NH 347-B.
e. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly
be granted to the petitioner.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of agricultural
land bearing survey Nos.116/1/3 and 116/2/4, situated at the village
Bhadali, District-Khargone (M.P). On 28.03.2023, an award was
passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Competent Authority
(respondent No.4), for acquisition of land admeasuring 0.471 hectare
collectively, comprised in survey Nos.116/1 and 116/2 (the area
comprised in survey Nos.116/1 and 116/2 was 0.003 hectare and 0.468
hectare respectively), situated at Village Bhadali, Khargone for
construction of NH347-C, which is under construction. Again on
13.02.2025, a Gazette Notification No.CG-DL-E-17022025-261093
was published by National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter
referred to as ‘NHAI’) through its Chairman under sub Section (1) of
Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (herein after referred
to as the ‘Act of 1956’), further acquiring the remaining part of the
land of the petitioner, for construction of National Highway 347-B,
against which the petitioner preferred an objection dated 10.03.2025
before the SDO (Revenue) respondent No.4, which came to be
rejected vide order dated 04.07.2025. Being aggrieved by the both the
proceedings, present petitions have been filed.
4. Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner and his family members are totally dependent on
agriculture for their survival. Earlier also, substantial portion of
petitioner's landed measuring 0.471 hectare collectively, comprised in
Survey Nos.116/1 (0.003 hectare) and 116/2 (0.468 hectare) was
acquired for construction of NH 347-C (Sanawad to Kasrawad). The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

4
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
petitioner is somehow managing to survive after the vesting of his land
in the aforesaid National Highway which is still under construction
and before petitioner could recover from loss of his land, the
respondents have again published Gazette Notification for acquiring
the remaining portion of petitioner's land i.e ., 0.6145 hectare
collectively (the area comprised in survey Nos. 116/1/3 and 116/2/4 is
0.4128 hectare and 0.2017 hectare respectively), for construction of
NH 347-B. The petitioner is made to suffer due to the strange
alignment of the proposed NH 347-B, which for the reasons best
known to the respondents, has been designed in a such manner that it
affects a large number of farmers, even when a simpler alignment
affecting fewer farmers, was more obvious and economically viable.
Instead of splitting NH 347-B from Village Bhandli, NH 347-B could
have been planned to split from near Purnanand Temple towards
Julwaniya. By simpler alignment, land of dozens of farmers could
have been saved and huge amount of public money can be saved. The
present alignment of NH 347-B is faulty, arbitrary, and unreasonable
and amounts to misuse of authority. There is a reasonable
apprehension that NH 347-B has been aligned in the aforesaid peculiar
manner to benefit some influential persons.
5] Shri Jayant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2
and 3/NHAI opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the
alignment of NH-347B was finalized after due technical and
administrative examination by the competent authorities, including the
Alignment Approval Committee held on 19.11.2024 and 20.11.2024,
which was also circulated by the Government of India, Ministry of
Road, Transport & Highways (BP & SP Cell) vide Office
Memorandum dated 29.11.2024. It was submitted that the alignment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

5
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
was determined keeping in view the requirements of traffic,
development, public convenience, engineering standards and road
safety.
6] Counsel also submitted that the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways (Respondent No. 01/ “MoRTH”) has mandated NHAI for
development of four lane Deshgaon-Khargone-Julwaniya highway
project to improve the East-West connectivity as a part of Nagpur -
Vadodara corridor which was also envisioned in Bharatmala
Pariyojana . It is further submitted that the alternative alignment
suggested by the petitioner had been examined by the DPR consultant
and was found technically unfeasible in their report dated 05.01.2026,
as it would result in conflict between the proposed underpass of NH-
347B and the under-construction underpass of NH-347C, besides
involving additional geometric, bridge and cost implications.
According to the respondents, the approved alignment is safer,
economically viable and better serves the public purpose of the
project. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered
by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. , passed in W.P. No.30818/2025
dated 12.08.2026 wherein, this Court was considering a challenge to
the decision concerning the alignment and construction of bypasses on
NH-135B, and it has been held that:-
“…..12, Jn the case of "Federation of Railway Officers
Association v. Union of India, [(2003) 4 SCC 289)", the
Supreme Court of India held that in policy and planning
decisions involving financial expenditure and resource
optimisation, the court cannot substitute its own opinion
for that of the competent executive authority. In the case
of "National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal
Jaidev Vade, [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1070]" the Apex
Court held that the decision whether to construct a
bypass or widen an existing road involves multifaceted
considerations including traffic volume, budgetary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

6
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
allocations, rehabilitation burdens, and environmental
impact. When the competent authority finds low traffic
load and excessive rehabilitation costs, such an
assessment is not liable to be interfered with in writ
jurisdiction unless tainted by demonstrable mala fides or
statutory illegality.
13. In the matter of "Union of India v. Kushala Shetty &
ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 69)" [(2011) 12 SCC 69], it has been
held that the High Courts should not interfere with the
route, alignment, or design of national highways and
bypasses finalized by technical experts. Selection of
route, feasibility, and modifications of infrastructure
projects fall exclusively within the domain of the
National Highways Authority of India NHAI)/
specialized agencies, and courts
possess neither the technical expertise nor the
administrative discretion to alter them
…..”
7] Counsel has also submitted that the contention regarding
construction of parallel highways was misconceived, as the approved
alignment utilizes land already acquired for NH-347C, thereby
minimizing additional land acquisition.
8] As regards the acquisition proceedings, it is submitted that the
statutory procedure under the Act of 1956 was duly followed.
Notification under Section 3A was issued, the petitioner was afforded
an opportunity to file and argue on his objections under Section 3C,
and the same were considered and rejected by a reasoned order dated
04.07.2025. It was, therefore, contended that there was no violation of
natural justice or Article 300A of the Constitution of India. On these
grounds, counsel for respondent has submitted that the Gazette
Notification No. CG-DL-E-17022025-261093 dated 13.02.2025 and
the order dated 04.07.2025 did not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction and
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

7
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
10] On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the alignment of NH-347B was finalized
after due consideration by the competent authorities and upon
technical examination of the available alternatives. The Alignment
Approval Committee, after considering the relevant technical and
economic aspects, approved the proposed alignment. The subsequent
technical assessment by the DPR Consultant also supports the
approved alignment and indicates that the alternative alignment
suggested by the petitioner would result in an increased project length,
additional bridge structures, higher project cost and an adverse
geometric configuration, including a substantially reduced curve
radius. The proposed alternative was, therefore, not found to be
technically feasible or conducive to road safety.
11] It is further evident that the acquisition proceedings were
undertaken pursuant to the statutory framework governing acquisition
for national highways. The petitioner was issued notice under Section
3A of the Act of 1956, was afforded an opportunity to raise objections
under Section 3C, and his objections were duly considered and
rejected by a reasoned order dated 04.07.2025. The record, therefore,
does not disclose denial of an opportunity of hearing or violation of
the principles of natural justice.
12] The contention that the proposed alignment would result in an
unnecessary parallel highway is also not borne out from the material
placed on record, since the approved proposal makes use of land
already acquired for the overlapping portion of NH-347C, thereby
avoiding further acquisition and construction of a parallel road. The
technical material further indicates that the petitioner’s suggested
deviation would create conflict between the proposed and existing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

8
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected
underpass structures and would involve additional engineering and
financial implications.
13] On the other hand, it is trite that in the matters concerning the
alignment of a national highway, the choice of alignment is essentially
based upon technical, engineering, safety, economic and public-
interest considerations. This Court as also the Apex Court, time and
again has held that matters concerning the route, alignment, feasibility
and design of National Highways are matters within the domain of
technical experts and specialized authorities, and that the High Court
cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority.
Unless, the decision of the competent authority is shown to be
arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or contrary to the statutory provisions,
the Court would ordinarily be slow to substitute its own view for that
of the technical authorities. In the present case, no such infirmity has
been demonstrated. The petitioners have neither demonstrated any
statutory illegality in the approved alignment, nor produced any
technical material establishing that the alignment approved by the
competent authorities is technically defective or unsafe.
14] The acquisition, therefore, cannot be said to offend Article
300A of the Constitution of India, particularly when the material
indicates compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure and
consideration of the petitioner's objections. The mere fact that the
acquisition affects the petitioner's property or that his suggested
alternative has not been accepted would not, by itself, render the
acquisition or the alignment legally invalid. The alternative alignment
suggested by the petitioner is not supported by any comparable
technical assessment and, on the material available, would be
detrimental to the safety, economy and timely execution of the project.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30657

9
W.P. No.40027-2025 & connected

15] Consequently, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere
either with the notified alignment of NH-347B or with the order dated
04.07.2025 passed by the Competent Authority.
16] The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of merits and is hereby
dismissed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE JUDGE

Bahar

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 30-10-2026
14:47:48