Judicial Review is Limited in National Highway Alignment Decisions Absent Established Mala Fides or Procedural Illegality

The Appellants challenged a Single Judge judgment dated 13.03.2026, which dismissed their writ petition.

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) initially issued a notification on 22.06.2021 to acquire land for the Bharatmala Patna-Sahebganj corridor.

A second notification was issued on 14.06.2022, which the Appellants alleged altered the alignment by 400 feet to favor a local hotel ('Blue Lotus'), thereby shifting the acquisition burden onto the Appellants' land.

The Respondents contended the realignment was technically necessary to maintain mandatory distance between an existing and a proposed Railway Under Bridge (RUB).

1. Whether the realignment of the National Highway was vitiated by mala fides or procedural irregularity.

2. Whether the publication of the acquisition notification in the Official Gazette constitutes sufficient legal notice to the affected parties.

3. Whether the writ petition was liable for dismissal due to the non-joinder of a necessary party (the ‘Blue Lotus’ Hotel owner).

Sections 3A, 3C, and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, which empower the Central Government to acquire land for public purposes and stipulate that once a declaration is made, it cannot be questioned by any court.

The narrow scope of judicial review in policy decisions involving highway alignments, as held in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty.

Publication in the Official Gazette is the standard legal mode of notice to the public, as held in Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj and Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.

The standard for Intra-Court Appeals from Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v. Workmen, holding that a Single Judge’s finding should not be disturbed unless perverse.

The Court found that the Appellants failed to establish specific evidence of mala fides regarding the alleged favoritism toward the 'Blue Lotus' Hotel, noting the burden of proof for such allegations is heavy.

Technically, the realignment was justified by the Superintending Engineer/NHAI as a necessity to accommodate Railway Under Bridges (RUB).

Regarding the lack of personal notice for the second notification, the Court reasoned that publication in the Official Gazette is a "solemn act" that transforms executive decisions into law and serves as sufficient notice; the Appellants' ignorance cannot invalidate the legal process.

The Court upheld the Single Judge's finding that the failure to implead the hotel owner—whose interests would be directly affected—was a significant procedural lapse.

The Court held that the Appellants’ failure to object during the statutory period following the Gazette notification barred their claims.

The Appellants were directed to take steps to claim compensation in accordance with the law.