# Veena Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1142
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15470 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kunal Ravi Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veena-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-53921
- **Pages:** 26

## Text

_Characters 0–39,818 of 88,435. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39818 for what follows._

1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. We are definitely of the view that Section 69 of B.N.S. punishes deceit and not disappointment.
In the instant case, we find that there was an agreement between the parties to marry and there was in fact
no unilateral or deceitful promise by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 4 that he would marry her in
near future. The agreement therefore to marry was very much in existence between the parties. There was
no false promise from either side. We are also of the view that the timing of the first information report
was such which was not congenial to the respondent no. 4, it having been lodged at a time when the
petitioner no. 1 thought that marriage was not possible for one reason or the other. We are also of the
considered view that the evidence which has been provided in the writ petition definitely was to the extent
that there was no false promise of marriage or deceitful means from the side of the petitioner no. 1.

12. Having found that there was no false promise to marry or there was any adopting of deceitful
means on the basis of which relations went to the extent as had been mentioned by the respondent no. 4,
we are of the considered view that no ingredients which constituted the offence under Section 69 of B.N.S.
were made out. We are conscious of the fact that there are two other sections i.e. Section 351(2) and 352 of
B.N.S. under which the first information report was also lodged. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in
Lovely Salhotra And Another versus State (NCT of Delhi) And Another reported in (2018) 12 SCC
391 the first information report could definitely be quashed in part.

13. We are thus of the considered view that the first information report so far as it contemplates of an
investigation under Section 69 of the B.N.S. is to be quashed. The first information report which gave rise
to Case Crime No. 566 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2), 69 of B.N.S. is quashed to the extent it was
lodged under Section 69 of B.N.S. The investigation under Sections 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. shall continue.

14. However, since there was an interim order protecting the petitioners from any coercive action
being taken against them during the investigation, we provide that the investigation may now go on under
Section 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. However, the petitioners shall not be arrested till such time as the police
report is submitted.

15. The writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1142
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 15470 of 2025

Veena Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
1 All. Veena Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1143
 (a) Whether there has been a change in the alignment and variation in the area of land proposed to be
acquired?
(b) Whether the issuance of the second notification dated 10.07.2024 u/s 3D of the Act, 1956 is wholly
without jurisdiction?
(c) Whether there was a denial of opportunity u/s 3C?
(d) Whether the respondents acted in blatant disregard of Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956, which mandates
publication of a public notice in two local newspapers inviting claims from interested persons before
determining compensation?
(e) Whether non-compliance, if any, would vitiate the entire award or whether it would only affect the
petitioner's right to claim enhanced compensation?
(f) What is the scope of judicial review in highway projects?
(g) Whether individual hardships can be permitted to defeat or delay projects of national importance?

Headnotes
A. Land Acquisition Law - National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3A(1), 3D(1), 3D(2), 3D(4), 3A,
3B, 3C, 3D, 3G; Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006: Section 80; Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 4, 5A, 6 - Validity of Second Section 3D Notification - The primary contention raised by
petitioner is that the issuance of the second notification dated 10.07.2024 u/s 3D of the Act,
1956 is wholly without jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, once a notification u/s 3A is issued
followed by a declaration u/s 3D, the respondents cannot issue another Section 3D notification without first
issuing a fresh Section 3A notification, particularly when there has been an alleged change in
alignment and variation in the area of land proposed to be acquired.

(a) The material on record clearly demonstrates that there has been no change in the alignment
of the highway. The Detailed Project Report and Land Acquisition Plan were finalized before the
commencement of acquisition proceedings, and the alignment has remained consistent
throughout the process. The issuance of two Section 3D notifications was necessitated purely by
administrative exigencies arising from the obstruction and non-cooperation of certain landowners, including
the petitioner, during the survey operations. (Para 6.2.2)

(b) The provisions of the Act, 1956 are materially different from those of the Act, 1894. Section
3D of the Act, 1956 does not contain any prohibition against issuance of successive declarations
u/s 3D(1) following a single notification u/s 3A(1), particularly in circumstances where practical
difficulties have prevented completion of survey of all affected land in one go. (Para 6.2.8)

(c) Despite due publication and opportunity, no objections were filed by the petitioner within the
prescribed period. In the present case, the initial notification u/s 3A(1) dated 06.02.2024 clearly covered
the entire stretch of land proposed to be acquired, including the petitioner's land. The substance of the
notification u/s 3A(1) was duly published in two newspapers on 10.02.2024. All affected
landowners, including the petitioner, were granted statutory opportunity to file objections u/s 3C within 21
days. (Para 6.2.10)

(d) The subsequent issuance of two Section 3D notifications on different dates was a practical
necessity arising from the conduct of the landowners themselves. The land could not be
surveyed due to obstruction. To avoid further delay in the project, the authorities proceeded to issue the
first declaration in respect of the land that had been surveyed, and thereafter issued the second declaration
after completing the remaining survey. Both declarations were issued within one year from the date
of publication of the Section 3A notification, as mandated by Section 3D(3) of the Act, 1956.
(Para 6.2.11, 6.2.9)

(e) The doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions
to the prejudice of another. There is no legal bar in the Act, 1956 against issuance of successive
declarations u/s 3D(1) in such circumstances wherein total land is already notified in the Section 3A(1). The
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong. Having obstructed the survey process,
she cannot now turn around and claim that the subsequent notification is illegal. (Para 6.2.12)

Since it is not the case of the petitioner that a larger area of land as notified u/s 3A(1) was
acquired, therefore the Second 3D(1) notification published within the prescribed time period is
justified. (Para 6.2.13)

B. Alleged Denial of Opportunity U/s 3C - The second contention raised by the petitioner is that
the petitioner was completely denied her right of objection 3C of the Act, 1956. It is argued that
no notice was issued and no hearing was granted before including the petitioner's land in the
second Section 3D notification.

(a) Objections filed beyond the prescribed period u/s 3C(1) do not require consideration by the
Competent Authority. The right to object u/s 3C is very limited and extends only to the use of land for a
purpose other than that specified u/s 3A(1). If no objection is filed within time, the Competent Authority is
obliged to submit its report to the Central Government recommending issuance of declaration u/s 3D(1).
(6.3.4)

The record clearly establishes that a notification u/s 3A(1) was issued on 06.02.2024, and the
substance thereof was published in two widely circulated newspapers, namely "Navbharat
Times" and "Times of India," on 10.02.2024. The notification specifically invited objections from
persons interested in the land u/s 3C(1) of the Act, 1956 within twenty-one days from the date of
publication in the Official Gazette. The petitioner's land, namely Gata No. 27, was clearly mentioned in the
Schedule appended to the said notification. (Para 6.3.2)

Despite such publication and opportunity, the petitioner did not file any objection u/s 3C, within
the prescribed statutory period of 21 days. Once that period expires, the right to object is lost. (Para 6.3.3,
6.3.7)

(b) Section 3-C (1) of the Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can only be to
the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than mentioned in Section 3A (1) of the
Act and it does not confer right to object to the acquisition. (Para 6.3.5)

The right to object u/s 3C is very limited and extends only to questioning the public purpose, and not to
matters such as quantum of land acquired or alignment of the highway, which are technical matters within
the domain of experts. (Para 6.3.6)

(c) The petitioner and her family members actively obstructed the survey process. Such conduct
clearly demonstrates that they were fully aware of the acquisition proceedings. They cannot now
take shelter under the plea of denial of opportunity when they themselves prevented the authorities from
completing the statutory formalities. (Para 6.3.8)

C. Non-Compliance with Section 3G(3) - The petitioner has vehemently argued that the
respondents acted in blatant disregard of Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956, which mandates
publication of a public notice in two local newspapers inviting claims from interested persons
before determining compensation. Since, no such notice was published, and consequently, the award
dated 15.02.2025 is void.

(a) Procedural lapses in the determination of compensation do not affect the validity of the
acquisition itself once the land has vested in the Central Government u/s 3D(2) of the Act, 1956.

Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956 provides that the Competent Authority shall publish a notice in
two local newspapers, one in vernacular language, requiring persons interested in the land to
1 All. Veena Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1145
appear before it on the date and time specified in the notice to prefer their claims to
compensation. The object of Section 3G(3) is to ensure that all interested persons are given an opportunity
to submit their claims regarding compensation, including claims for valuation of land, structures, trees, and
other assets, as well as claims for rehabilitation and other benefits. (Para 6.4.2, 6.4.3)

Section 3D(4) of the Act, 1956 categorically bars any challenge to the declaration made u/s
3D(1) in any court or by any other authority. Once a declaration is published u/s 3D(1), the land
vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances by virtue of Section
3D(2). Thereafter, the only dispute that can arise relates to the quantum of compensation, for which an
adequate remedy by way of arbitration is provided u/s 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. (Para 6.4.4)

(b) The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy is a complete bar to the entertainment of
a writ petition, except in cases of jurisdictional error or mala fides, neither of which has been
established in the present case. Even assuming, without accepting, that there was some procedural
irregularity in the determination of compensation, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to seek
enhancement of compensation by invoking the arbitration mechanism u/s 3G(5), and not to seek quashing of
the entire acquisition by filing a writ petition u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6.4.5)

(c) The appropriate forum for adjudication of all issues relating to compensation is the
arbitration mechanism provided u/s 3G(5) of the Act, 1956, any detailed examination or
observations by this Court on the merits of the award would be inappropriate and may prejudice
the rights of the parties in the arbitration proceedings. Court has consciously refrained from examining
the award dated 15.02.2025 in any detail or expressing any opinion on the correctness of the classification of
land, the methodology of valuation, or the quantum of compensation determined therein. (Para 6.4.6)

D. Scope of Judicial Review in Highway Projects - (a) The scope of judicial review in matters
relating to highway development and land acquisition for national highway projects is well
settled. Courts have consistently recognised that decisions concerning the planning, alignment,
feasibility, and execution of such projects lie primarily within the domain of expert bodies
constituted for that purpose. The NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the
field of development and maintenance of national highways.

Judicial interference is, therefore, circumscribed and warranted only where the action
complained of is demonstrably arbitrary, ex facie contrary to the statutory mandate, or vitiated
by mala fides. Courts do not sit in appeal over technical or policy decisions taken after due deliberation by
specialised authorities, nor can they substitute their own views on matters requiring technical expertise and
assessment of larger public interest. (Para 6.5.2)

(b) In the present case, no mala fides have been established. The allegation that the alignment
was deliberately changed to target the petitioner's hotel is wholly unsupported by any credible
material. On the contrary, the record shows that the Detailed Project Report and Land Acquisition Plan were
prepared after due technical surveys and feasibility studies, and the alignment was finalized in accordance
with technical requirements and engineering considerations.

The petitioner purchased the land on 29.05.2017 and applied for conversion of land use from agricultural to
commercial u/s 80(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 on 15.02.2021. Despite the pendency of the
conversion application, the petitioner commenced construction of the hotel in 2021 and completed the same
in 2023. The construction of the hotel was thus undertaken when the application for change of land use was
still pending consideration before the competent authority. Having proceeded with construction in such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot now claim that the acquisition proceedings were targeted at her property
with any mala fide intention. The petitioner chose to invest and completed the construction at her own
commercial risk. This factual position, however, does not preclude the petitioner from claiming appropriate
compensation for the land and structures in accordance with law, including the right to contend that the
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation should be determined keeping in view the actual use and nature of the property at the time of
acquisition. (Para 6.5.4)

E. Public Interest Vs. Private Interest - (a) It is well-established that whenever there is a
conflict between public interest and private interest, the former must prevail. Infrastructure
development is critical for the economic growth and prosperity of the nation.

While the law provides for payment of fair and adequate compensation to persons whose land is
acquired for public purposes, individual hardship cannot be permitted to defeat or delay projects
of national importance. While individual property rights are important, they cannot override genuine public
purposes underlying land acquisition. The constitutional courts, while exercising jurisdiction u/Article 226,
must keep the larger public interest in mind and must weigh public interest vis-a-vis private interest while
exercising their discretionary powers, especially in matters of land acquisition. (Para 6.6.2, 6.6.4)

(b) The phrase 'public purpose'... must include a purpose in which the general interest of the
community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly and vitally concerned.
Thus, where acquisition subserves a larger public goal, the incidental benefit to private entities cannot
invalidate it. The Government's satisfaction regarding public purpose is entitled to due weight and judicial
interference is warranted only where the acquisition is shown to be a colourable exercise of power to serve a
purely private interest. (Para 6.6.5)

In the present case, the project of widening and four-laning of NH-334D (Aligarh-Palwal Section) is of
immense public importance and is intended to serve the larger public interest. (Para 7.3)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. Anurag Srivastava and 2 Others Vs. National Highway Authority of India Through Its Chairman and 2 others
Writ-C No. 107 of 2019 (Para 4.8)
2. State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593 (Para 4.8)
3. Church of North India Trust Association Vs. Union of India and 3 others, Writ-C No.56316 of 2016 (Para
5.13)
4. Himanshu Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and 3 Others, Writ-C No. 38328 of 2017 (Para 5.13)
5. Pramod Kumar Gupta and others Vs. National Highways Authority of India and others, Writ-C No.1279 of
2022 (Para 5.13)
6. Brikesh Kumar Pathak Vs. General Manager (East Uttar Pradesh) National State Highway and 3 Others,
Writ-C No. 7391 of 2025 (Para 5.13)
7. Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and others, (2011) 12 SCC 69 (Para 5.13)
8. The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit Vs. P.V. Krishnamoorthy and others, Civil Appeal
Nos.3976-3977 of 2010 (Para 5.13)
9. Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 SCC 477 (Para 6.3.5)
10. Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1997 SC 1236 (Para 6.6.4)
11. Pratibha Nema and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, AIR 2003 SC 3140 (Para 6.6.5)

List of Acts
 National Highways Act, 1956; Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006; Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

List of Keywords
 acquisitions, national, highways, successive, declarations, opportunity, notification, alignment, interest,
public, private.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Komal Mehrotra, Prashant Mathur, Sr. Advocate
1 All. Veena Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1147
For Respondent(s): Devendra Kumar, Sunil Kumar Yadav, A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal,
Swetashwa Agarwal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Komal Mehrotra and
Shri Eshaan Chandra, learned counsels for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 - Union of India, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, both for
the State-respondents, and Shri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Devendra
Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - National Highway Authority of India.

1.1. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being decided at the admission
stage.

A. PRAYER:

2. This writ petition has been preferred praying for the following relief:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification No.
S.O. 2686(E) dated 10.07.2024(ANNEXURE NO. 1) issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport &
Highways/Respondent No.1 under section 3D(2) of the national Highways Act, 1956, in respect of
the land of the petitioner i.e. Gata/Plot No. 27 situated in Village - Kurana, District - Aligarh;

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Award dated
15.02.2025 (ANNEXURE NO. 2) passed by the Respondent No.4-Competent Authority/Additional
District Magistrate (Administration), District Aligarh, in respect of the land of the petitioner i.e.
Gata/Plot No. 27 situated in Village Kurana, District - Aligarh:

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents
not to demolish and dispossess the petitioner from Gata/Plot No. 27, situated in Village - Kurana,
District - Aligarh;

B. FACTS OF THE CASE:-

3. It reflects from the records that on 06.02.2024, the Central Government, in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 19562, issued Notification
S.O. 558(E), published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, declaring its intention to
acquire land for a public purpose, namely, for building, widening/four-laning/six-laning,
maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. NH-334(D) in the stretch from
Km. 0.000 to Km. 58.600, known as the Aligarh Palwal Section, situated in District Aligarh, State
of Uttar Pradesh. The notification contained a brief description of the land proposed to be acquired
as detailed in the Schedule appended thereto. In the said notification, the plot in question, namely
Gata No. 27, finds place at Serial No. 681, and an area measuring 0.8348 hectares of the said plot
was proposed to be acquired. It further invited objections from persons interested in the said land
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 3C(1) of the Act, 1956 within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the
notification in the Official Gazette. Such objections were required to be submitted in writing to the
Competent Authority, namely, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh, who
was empowered to afford an opportunity of hearing to the objectors, either in person or through a
legal practitioner, and thereafter to pass orders allowing or disallowing the objections. The
notification also clarified that the orders passed by the Competent Authority under Section 3C(2) of
the Act, 1956 would be final and that the land plans and other acquisition details were available for
inspection in the office of the Competent Authority.

3.1. Pursuant thereto, the substance of the aforesaid notification dated 06.02.2024 was
published, as required under Section 3A(3) of the Act, 1956, in two widely circulated newspapers,
namely, "The Times of India" (English) and "Navbharat Times" (Hindi), both dated 10.02.2024.
Objections received from interested persons under Section 3C of the Act, 1956 were duly
considered by the Competent Authority and, after affording an opportunity of hearing, were
disposed of in accordance with law. Thereafter, in compliance with Section 3D(1) of the Act, 1956,
the Competent Authority submitted its report to the Central Government. Upon receipt of the said
report, the Central Government issued Notification S.O. 1221(E) dated 11.03.2024 under Section
3D(1) of the Act, 1956, declaring that the land specified in the Schedule annexed to the earlier
notification was required to be acquired for the aforesaid public purpose. In the said notification,
the plot in question, namely Gata No. 27, finds place at Serial No. 582, and an area measuring
0.3460 hectares of the said plot was declared to be acquired. By the same notification, and in
exercise of powers under Section 3D(2) of the Act, 1956 it was further declared that upon
publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, the land so specified stood vested absolutely
in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances.

3.2. Subsequently, the Central Government issued Notification S.O. 2686(E) dated
10.07.2024, reiterating the acquisition process initiated by Notification S.O. 558(E) dated
06.02.2024, including publication of the substance thereof in the aforesaid newspapers,
consideration and disposal of objections under Section 3C, and submission of the report by the
Competent Authority under Section 3D(1) of the Act, 1956. By the said notification dated
10.07.2024, the Central Government again declared, in exercise of powers under Section 3D(1) of
the Act, 1956, that the land specified in the Schedule was required to be acquired for building,
widening/four-laning/six-laning, maintenance, management and operation of NH-334(D) from Km.
0.000 to Km. 58.600 (Aligarh Palwal Section) in District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, and further
declared under Section 3D(2) of the Act, 1956 that upon publication of the notification in the
Official Gazette, the said land stood vested absolutely in the Central Government, free from all
encumbrances. In the said notification, the plot in question, namely Gata No. 27, finds place at
Serial No. 70, and an area measuring 0.3167 hectares of the said plot was declared to be acquired.
Thereafter, the respondents proceeded to determine compensation, and an award dated 15.02.2025
was passed, treating the petitioner's land as agricultural land.

3.3. Aggrieved by Notification No. S.O. 2686(E) dated 10.07.2024, issued under Section
3D of the Act, 1956, and the award dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Competent Authority, namely,
the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), District Aligarh, relating to Gata/Plot No. 27,
1 All. Veena Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1149
Village Kurana, District Aligarh, part of which belongs to the petitioner, the present writ petition
has been filed.

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

4. Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the
entire acquisition proceedings, insofar as they relate to the petitioner's land, are vitiated by
illegality, arbitrariness, and complete non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act,
1956.

4.1. The petitioner, Veena Singh, is the lawful owner of part of Gata/Plot No. 27, situated
in Village Kurana, District Aligarh, measuring approximately 0.1191 hectares. She purchased the
said land through a registered sale deed dated 29.05.2017. After purchase, the petitioner applied for
conversion of land use from agricultural to commercial under Section 80(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006 on 15.02.2021. The said application for land use conversion is still pending
before the concerned authorities and has not been decided till date.

4.2. He submitted that In the year 2021, the petitioner raised construction over the
aforesaid plot, which was completed in the year 2023. The construction consists of a hotel-cumrestaurant building. The hotel constructed on the land is being run by the petitioner's son, Digvijay
Singh, under the name and style of "Hotel Orchid Cherry."

4.3. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel contended that issuance of the second
notification dated 10.07.2024 under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 is wholly without jurisdiction.
Once a notification under Section 3A is issued declaring the intention to acquire land, and
thereafter a declaration under Section 3D is made, the respondents cannot issue another Section 3D
notification without first issuing a fresh Section 3A notification. In the present case, the alignment
of the highway was changed arbitrarily, several plots were deleted, new plots were added, and areas
of various plots were altered. Such substantial changes mandatorily required a fresh notification
under Section 3A, followed by an opportunity to file objections under Section 3C. Bypassing this
statutory procedure renders the second Section 3D notification illegal.

4.4. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the petitioner was completely denied her
right of objection under Section 3C of the Act, 1956. No notice was issued, and no hearing was
granted before including the entire land of the petitioner in the second Section 3D notification. This
action is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

4.5. It was next submitted that even at the stage of determination of compensation, the
respondents acted in blatant disregard of Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956. The said provision
mandates publication of a public notice in two local newspapers, one of which must be in
vernacular language, inviting claims from all interested persons before determining compensation.
In the present case, no such notice was ever published. The petitioner was never informed about the
proposed valuation, nor was she given an opportunity to place material regarding the commercial
nature of the land and the existing hotel structure.
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4.6. Learned Senior Counsel emphasised that the award dated 15.02.2025 is therefore
void, as it has been passed without following mandatory statutory requirements. The respondents
wrongly treated the petitioner's land as agricultural, despite clear evidence that a hotel-cumrestaurant was constructed and operational on the land. An order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the
Collector, Aligarh under the Stamp Act, 1908 had already recognised the non-agricultural nature of
the land, which was deliberately ignored.

4.7. It was further argued that the award fails to consider the severe prejudice caused to
the petitioner and her family. The hotel is the sole source of livelihood of the petitioner's son, and
the entire family depends upon it. The respondents, being instrumentalities of the State under
Article 12 of the Constitution, are bound to act fairly, reasonably, and non-arbitrarily. Their actions
violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4.8. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated
06.09.2019 passed in (Anurag Srivastava and 2 Others vs. National Highway Authority of
India Through Its Chairman and 2 Others) and submits that in the said case, it was held that
publication of notice under Section 3G(3) is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. Failure to
follow the three-stage statutory scheme under Sections 3A, 3D, and 3G vitiates the acquisition
proceedings. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma.

4.9. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel submitted that both the impugned second Section 3D
notification dated 10.07.2024 and the award dated 15.02.2025 deserve to be quashed. The
respondents must be directed to act strictly in accordance with law, after giving due notice, hearing,
and fair compensation to the petitioner.

D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :-

5. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
namely the National Highways Authority of India, submitted that the present writ petition is wholly
misconceived, devoid of merit, and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It was contended that
the entire acquisition proceedings have been carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions
of the Act, 1956, and there has been no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural lapse at any stage of
the acquisition process.

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that NHAI is a statutory authority constituted
under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, and is entrusted with the responsibility
of development, construction, maintenance, management, and operation of National Highways
across the country. The projects undertaken by NHAI are of national importance and are conceived
in public interest, keeping in view the rapid socio-economic development of the country, increased
vehicular traffic, and the need for safe, efficient, and obstruction-free transportation corridors. The
present project of widening and four-laning of National Highway No. 334D (Aligarh-Palwal
Section) is one such vital infrastructure project intended to ease congestion, reduce travel time,
save fuel, and promote economic activity in the region.
1 All. Veena Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1151

5.2. It was further submitted that a Detailed Project Report (DPR) and Land Acquisition
Plan (LAP) were prepared after due technical surveys, feasibility studies, and approval by the
competent authorities. The alignment of the highway was finalized much prior to the initiation of
land acquisition proceedings and has remained unchanged throughout. The allegation of the
petitioner that the alignment has been altered to target a particular property is completely false,
baseless, and unsupported by any material on record.

5.3. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the Central
Government, through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, issued a notification dated
06.02.2024 under Section 3A(1) of the Act, 1956, expressing its intention to acquire land for the
purpose of widening and four-laning of NH-334D. The substance of the said notification was duly
published in two widely circulated newspapers, namely "Navbharat Times" and "Times of India,"
on 10.02.2024. All affected landowners, including the petitioner, were granted the statutory
opportunity to file objections under Section 3C of the Act within 21 days. Despite such due
publication and opportunity, no objections were filed by the petitioner or other concerned
landowners within the prescribed period.

5.4. It was emphasized that after completion of the statutory objection stage, the
acquisition process proceeded further. During the course of survey and spot inspection in village
Kurana, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh, certain landowners, including those associated with Hotel
Orchid Cherry, did not permit the survey team to carry out measurements and inspection of the
affected land and structures. Due to this non-cooperation and resistance, approximately 700 meters
of affected land could not be surveyed at that stage. Consequently, while issuing the declaration
under Section 3D(1) on 11.03.2024, only such land could be notified which had been properly
surveyed, including 0.346 hectare from disputed Gata No. 27.

5.5. Learned Senior Counsel clarified that this was not a case of selective acquisition or
change in alignment, but a practical administrative necessity arising solely due to the obstruction
created by the concerned landowners. After intervention and assistance of the district
administration, the survey of the remaining affected land was completed. Thereafter, a further
declaration under Section 3D(1) was issued on 10.07.2024 for the remaining affected land
measuring 0.3167 hectare of the disputed Gata No. 27, which was left on the first notification under
Section 3D(1). Both notifications formed part of the same acquisition proceedings and related to
the same project and alignment.

5.6. Learned Senior Counsel strongly argued that once a declaration under Section 3D(1)
is published, the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, as
provided under Section 3D(2) of the Act, 1956. Moreover, Section 3D(4) clearly bars any challenge
to such declaration before any court or authority.

5.7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that after completion of all statutory
formalities, including issuance of notice under Section 3G(3), consideration of the claims, and
assessment of the land and structures, the Competent Authority passed an award dated 15.02.2025
in respect of Gata No. 27 measuring 0.6627 hectare, situated in Village Kurana, District Aligarh.
The compensation awarded covers both the land and the structures, notwithstanding the fact that
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the land in question continued to be recorded as agricultural land and no declaration had been
issued by any competent authority declaring it as non-agricultural under Section 80 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006. The compensation for both land and construction has been determined in
accordance with the applicable rules and prevailing rates. The NHAI has already deposited the
entire compensation amount with the Competent Authority, and more than 60% of the awarded
compensation has already been disbursed to the affected landowners.

5.8. It was submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,
the Act, 1956 itself provides an effective alternative statutory remedy by way of arbitration under
Section 3G(5). Without availing this remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court
under Article 226, which is impermissible. The writ petition, therefore, is barred due to availability
of an efficacious alternative remedy.

5.9. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the proceedings before the National SC/ST
Commission, where similar allegations of change of alignment were raised by the husband of the
petitioner. NHAI filed a detailed reply denying all allegations. After examining the record and
hearing the parties, the Commission dismissed the complaint vide order dated 16.10.2024. This fact
clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is repeatedly raising the same unfounded allegations before
different forums, with deliberate design to derail the NHAI project.

5.10. It was further contended that NHAI has repeatedly responded to representations
made by the petitioner, clearly informing her that there has been no change in alignment and that
there is no provision under law to de-notify land once it has vested in the Central Government. The
petitioner has been fully informed that the project is being executed strictly as per the approved
DPR/LAP and that individual convenience cannot override public interest and technical
requirements of a national highway project.

5.11. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized that infrastructure projects of this magnitude
involve huge public investment and are bound by strict timelines. Any delay caused by obstruction,
protest, or non-cooperation of landowners leads to escalation of costs and affects public interest at
large. The law, therefore, provides a streamlined acquisition process under the Act, 1956 distinct
from the general land acquisition law, to ensure timely completion of such projects.

5.12. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was duly informed to cooperate in
inspection and valuation of structures but failed to do so in time. Despite this, the Competent
Authority proceeded in accordance with available records and material to pass the award. The
award itself records that all claims and objections received were duly considered.

5.13. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel had placed reliance upon the
following judgments:

(i) judgment dated 19.12.2016 passed by a Division Bench in Church of North India
Trust Association vs. Union of India and 3 others,
1 All. Veena Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1153

(ii) judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in Himanshu Kumar and Another vs. Union of
India and 3 Others6,

(iii) judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed in Pramod Kumar Gupta and others vs.
National Highways Authority of India and others,

(iv) judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed in Brikesh Kumar Pathak vs. General Manager
(East Uttar Pradesh) National State Highway and 3 Others,

(v) the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and others,

(vi) the judgment dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in The Project
Director, Project Implementation Unit vs. P.V. Krishnamoorthy and others.

5.14. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Vishnu Prasad Sharma (supra) is misplaced as the said judgment was
passed in a land acquisition matter relating to Land Acquisition Act, 189411, however, the instant
matter relates to Act, 1956.