Patna High Court Quashes Blank NHAI Eviction Notice, Imposes ₹5,000 Cost for Irresponsible Issuance

The petitioner claimed that portions of his land were acquired for construction of National Highway No. 527 “C” (Majhauli–Choraut), while construction was subsequently raised on the remaining, unacquired portion of the land.

He sought directions for demarcation of the unacquired land and protection against demolition of the construction thereon before such demarcation.

The National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) issued a notice under Section 26(2) of the National Highways Control (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, alleging unauthorised occupation of highway land.

The notice was substantially blank: it contained no number, date, location, land particulars, chainage, or specified area, although it bore the digital signature of the authorised officer.

The State and NHAI conceded that the notice could not be treated as a proper notice.

Whether the unnumbered, undated, and substantially blank notice issued by NHAI under Section 26(2) of the National Highways Control (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 was legally valid?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to demarcation of the unacquired portion of his land before any coercive action, including demolition, was taken?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to costs for the mental agony caused by the defective notice?

The Court applied Section 26(2) of the National Highways Control (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, which regulates the procedure for removal of unauthorised occupation from national highway land and requires notice before coercive action.

The notice must be sufficiently specific and meaningful so that the affected person can identify the alleged encroachment and effectively submit a representation or objection.

The Court further applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, holding that an administrative notice lacking essential particulars cannot validly initiate adverse or coercive proceedings.

The Court examined the NHAI notice and found that almost every material field had been left blank, including the notice number, date, highway details, location, chainage, land particulars, and hearing date.

Since the notice did not disclose the factual basis or precise subject matter of the alleged unauthorised occupation, the petitioner could not meaningfully understand or contest the allegation.

The State and NHAI themselves acknowledged its invalidity.

Accordingly, the Court held that the notice failed to satisfy the requirements of a valid statutory notice under Section 26(2) and could not support coercive action.

To balance the NHAI’s authority to proceed against unauthorised occupation with the petitioner’s entitlement to procedural fairness, the Court permitted issuance of a fresh and proper notice, followed by joint demarcation of the unacquired land by the petitioner, the State authorities, and NHAI.

NHAI was permitted to issue a proper notice, after which the petitioner, the State respondents, and NHAI were directed to jointly fix a date for demarcating the petitioner’s unacquired land.

The Court imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on NHAI for the mental agony caused to the petitioner, payable within four weeks, while permitting NHAI to recover the amount from the responsible official after fixing responsibility in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.