Validity of Highway Acquisition Notifications under Sections 2(2) and 3A: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Judicial Review

1. Background of the Dispute

A series of appeals came before the Supreme Court arising from a common judgment of the Madras High Court. The controversy centred on acquisition of lands for the Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem National Corridor, an 8-lane greenfield highway project comprising NH-179A and NH-179B, forming part of “Bharatmala Pariyojna – Phase I”.

The Madras High Court had:

  • Quashed the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (1956 Act) for acquisition of specific lands for this project, and
  • Interdicted the land acquisition process for these stretches.

The key issues that reached the Supreme Court related to:

  • The Central Government’s competence under Section 2(2) and Section 3A of the 1956 Act,
  • The legality of changing the originally conceived corridor from a Chennai-Madurai Economic Corridor to the Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem National Corridor,
  • The limits of judicial review over technical and policy choices such as highway alignment, and
  • The stage at which environmental and forest clearances are required for highway projects.

The Supreme Court’s decision partially overturned the High Court, restoring acquisition notifications while maintaining relief concerning mutation entries.

2. Bharatmala Pariyojna – Phase I: Project Structure

2.1 Nature and Scope of the Programme

“Bharatmala Pariyojna – Phase I” is an umbrella programme for national highways intended to:

  • Improve freight and passenger movement efficiency,
  • Remove critical infrastructure gaps, and
  • Adopt a corridor-based planning approach.

The programme covers:

  • Around 24,800 km of roads under Phase I, and
  • An additional 10,000 km of balance works under the National Highways Development Program (NHDP).

The estimated outlay for Phase I was specified as Rs. 5,35,000 crores over five years (2017–2018 to 2021–2022).

The components include:

  • Economic Corridors,
  • Inter Corridors and Feeder Routes (ICFR),
  • National Corridor Efficiency Improvement,
  • Border and International connectivity roads,
  • Coastal and Port connectivity roads, and
  • Greenfield expressways.

Two key features highlighted in the programme were:

  • Delegated appraisal/approval powers for individual project stretches, and
  • State Government participation through a ‘Grand Challenge’ mechanism.

2.2 Flexibility to Substitute Stretches

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved the programme with an important built-in flexibility:

  • The Minister – Road Transport & Highways was expressly authorised to substitute or replace up to 15% of the 24,800 km earmarked under Phase I with other stretches,
  • This substitution power could be exercised where certain identified stretches could not be taken up due to alignment finalisation issues, land availability, or other unforeseen constraints,
  • The overall targets and financial outlay for Phase I were to remain unchanged.

This flexibility formed the statutory and policy backdrop for the subsequent change from the Chennai-Madurai Economic Corridor (C-M (EC)) to the Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem National Corridor (C-K-S (NC)).

3. Policy Decision: Shift from Chennai–Madurai to Chennai–Krishnagiri–Salem

3.1 Meeting of 19.1.2018

On 19.1.2018, a meeting chaired by the Secretary (Road Transport & Highways) was held to optimise Economic Corridors in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala under Bharatmala Pariyojna – Phase I.

The meeting was attended by:

  • Member (P), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
  • Joint Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH), and
  • CGM (T), NHAI.

For Tamil Nadu, the Committee specifically discussed:

  • The Chennai–Madurai section (C-M (EC)), and
  • The Chennai–Krishnagiri–Salem National Corridor (C-K-S (NC)).

After deliberation, it was noted that:

  • Chennai-bound traffic towards Salem/Coimbatore and Palakkad was congesting existing routes including the Chennai–Krishnagiri section of the Golden Quadrilateral and certain stretches of the Chennai–Madurai Economic Corridor,
  • Instead of merely widening existing sections like Tindivanam–Trichy, a greenfield crow-flight alignment between Chennai and Salem via Harur would reduce distance by approximately 40 km and decongest key existing links.

The Committee also recorded a view that realignment around Natham, instead of Tovarankuruchi–Melur–Madurai, would better address traffic and distance issues for another segment.

The minutes indicated that the proposed alignment change would be placed before the CCEA in the upcoming biannual update.

3.2 Declarations under Section 2(2) and Subsequent Section 3A Notifications

Following the policy decision:

  • Notifications under Section 2(2) of the 1956 Act were issued, declaring:

    • The stretch from Tambaram (Chennai) to Harur as NH-179B, and
    • The stretch from Harur to Salem as NH-179A.

  • Consequent to these declarations, notifications under Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act were issued specifying the lands proposed to be acquired for these national highways, and

  • Such Section 3A(1) notifications were published, including in local newspapers.

These notifications triggered the writ proceedings before the Madras High Court.

4. Proceedings before the Madras High Court

4.1 Nature of Challenges

Multiple writ petitions were filed:

  • By affected land owners (assessee/land holders), and
  • As public interest litigations.

The prayers included:

  • Challenge to notifications under Section 3A of the 1956 Act, and
  • In Writ Petition No. 21242/2018, a direct challenge to the notifications under Section 2(2) declaring NH-179A and NH-179B.

4.2 Issues Framed by the High Court

The High Court crystallised 15 questions for determination, covering: