NHAI Encroachment Notice Must Be Treated as a Show-Cause Notice Before Eviction

The petitioner claimed title to land in R.S.No.1976B/2A through his mother’s registered Will and challenged a notice dated 30.11.2024 directing removal of an alleged encroachment under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.

The NHAI maintained that the land had been acquired for NH-44 under the National Highways Act, 1956, and that the petitioner’s prayer hall was constructed after acquisition; compensation had been determined and deposited, but no owner had claimed it.

The petitioner had submitted a representation on 03.12.2024.

Title and possession were also in issue in civil proceedings, but no interim order restrained the NHAI.

Whether the Court should interfere with the NHAI’s encroachment-removal notice where the land had been acquired and no civil-court interim order restrained the authority from proceeding.

Whether the petitioner’s claim and representation required further consideration before the NHAI proceeded with removal.

The Court considered Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, under which the subject land had been notified for acquisition, and Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, under which the removal notice was issued.

It also proceeded on the basis that, absent an interim order from the competent civil court, the NHAI was not barred from proceeding in respect of acquired land.

The Court directed that the petitioner’s reply be considered on its merits and that any survey be conducted after notice, in the petitioner’s presence, with the highway boundaries duly demarcated.

The Court noted that the acquisition notification and award pre-dated the dispute and that the compensation amount had been deposited, while no claimant had established title before the acquisition authorities.

Although the petitioner asserted ownership and had pending civil proceedings, those proceedings contained no interim restraint against the NHAI; accordingly, the Court declined to quash the notice at that stage.

However, given the petitioner’s representation and the unresolved title and possession dispute, it treated the notice as a show-cause notice and required the authority to consider a detailed reply before taking further action.

The petitioner was given two weeks from receipt of the order to submit a detailed reply with supporting documents; the NHAI was directed to decide it on the merits and in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter.

Any survey was to be conducted after due notice, in the petitioner’s presence, and the highway boundaries were to be surveyed and demarcated before further action.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.