Courts cannot reassess NHAI’s technically approved highway alignment absent mala fides or statutory illegality.

The petitioners, residents of Mauza Khairi, Lakhisarai, challenged the proposed alignment of the Mokama–Munger four-lane Greenfield Highway under the Bharatmala Pariyojana.

They alleged that the alignment had been diverted from an alternative Greenfield corridor into densely populated areas of Lakhisarai, causing likely demolition of residential, commercial, industrial and other structures.

The National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) stated that the Alignment Approval Committee considered three alternatives on 28–29 November 2024 and selected Option 2 after evaluating engineering, socio-economic, environmental, safety and financial factors.

Acquisition notifications under Section 3A were issued on 25 July 2025, 2 September 2025 and 20 March 2026.

Declarations under Section 3D were subsequently published on 6 March 2026 and 19 March 2026, resulting in vesting of the acquired lands in the Central Government.

Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 3D(3) of the 1956 Act because the declarations under Section 3D were not issued within one year of the Section 3A notification.

Whether the selected Option 2 alignment was arbitrary, mala fide or legally invalid, warranting judicial interference and a direction to adopt the petitioners’ proposed alternative corridor.

Whether the acquisition was invalid for alleged failure to undertake adequate social-impact assessment, consultation, consent or rehabilitation measures.

Whether, after publication of the Section 3D declarations and vesting of the lands, the petitioners were entitled to quashing of the acquisition proceedings or interim protection against demolition and construction.

The Court applied Sections 3A, 3C and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. Section 3A authorises the Central Government to declare its intention to acquire land for a national highway; Section 3C provides an opportunity to interested persons to object within twenty-one days; and Section 3D requires publication of the acquisition declaration, after which the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances.

Under Section 3D(3), a Section 3A notification ceases to have effect if the Section 3D declaration is not published within one year, subject to exclusion of any period during which proceedings were stayed by a court.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69, for the principle that courts should not substitute their views for the expert assessment of highway authorities regarding the feasibility, viability or comparative merits of an alignment, and may interfere only in cases of patent illegality or mala fides.

It further referred to Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596, regarding lawful deprivation of property under Article 300A, and K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, (1953) 2 SCC 178, regarding the requirement of specific and cogent material to establish mala fides.

The Court held that the petitioners’ plea of statutory lapse was untenable because the relevant Section 3A acquisition notifications were issued on 25 July 2025 and 2 September 2025, whereas the Section 3D declarations were published on 6 March 2026 and 19 March 2026, within the prescribed one-year period.

The Court further found that the petitioners had been given an opportunity to object under Section 3C through newspaper publication but had failed to invoke that statutory remedy.

On alignment, the Court accepted NHAI’s evidence that three alternatives had been examined by the Alignment Approval Committee on multiple technical and public-interest parameters.

Option 2 involved lower estimated capital expenditure and fewer impacted structures than the competing options.

In light of Kushala Shetty, the Court declined to reassess the technical merits of the alignment or direct adoption of the petitioners’ preferred route.

The allegations of political influence and mala fides were considered vague, unsupported by material particulars, and procedurally defective because the alleged influential person was neither identified nor impleaded.

Since the Section 3D declarations had been published, the lands had vested in the Central Government and the acquisition had attained finality; the petitioners’ remaining entitlement was limited to lawful compensation upon production of supporting documents.

It held that the acquisition notifications had not lapsed, the Section 3D declarations were validly published within time, and the selected alignment was the result of a reasoned technical decision that disclosed no established illegality or mala fides.

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, without costs.

The petitioners were left to pursue their entitlement to compensation in accordance with law, and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.