MP HC Rejects Farmer’s NH-347B Reroute Bid, Upholds Acquisition Of His Remaining 0.6145 Hectare

The petitioner owned agricultural land at Village Bhadali, Khargone. A portion had previously been acquired for NH-347C; a further 0.6145 hectare was notified for acquisition for NH-347B under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The petitioner objected under Section 3C, arguing that the proposed alignment was faulty and that an alternative route would affect fewer farmers and reduce public expenditure. The competent authority rejected the objections by a reasoned order dated 4 July 2025.

The petitioner sought to quash that order and the Gazette notification, and to have the alignment changed or independently reviewed. The Court considered this petition with two connected petitions raising identical issues.

Sections 3A and 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 govern notification of land proposed for acquisition and consideration of objections to such acquisition; compliance with the prescribed procedure and a meaningful opportunity to object are relevant to the legality of the acquisition.

Article 300A protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law.

In reviewing highway alignment decisions, courts ordinarily defer to the technical and administrative judgment of competent authorities and will not substitute their own view absent demonstrated arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or statutory illegality.

The judgment also refers to Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289, on judicial restraint in policy and resource-allocation decisions; National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1070, on the multifactorial nature of highway planning; and Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69, on deference to specialist authorities in route and alignment decisions.

The Court found that the alignment had been approved after technical and economic consideration by the Alignment Approval Committee, and that a DPR consultant’s assessment supported the approved route.

That assessment identified increased length, additional bridge structures, higher cost, a reduced curve radius, and potential conflict with underpass structures as consequences of the petitioner’s alternative; the alternative was therefore considered technically unfeasible and detrimental to safety and economy.

The Court also found that the petitioner had received an opportunity to object under Section 3C and that the objections were rejected by a reasoned order. The record disclosed neither procedural unfairness nor evidence of statutory illegality, technical defect, or other ground warranting judicial intervention.

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, and the order governed the connected petitions.