THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT versus P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

Summary

The Court rejected challenges to the Chennai–Salem highway declarations and preliminary acquisition notifications, while preserving restoration of prematurely changed mutation entries. The Union could declare a new highway over greenfield land. Environmental and forest clearances were unnecessary before Sections 2(2) and 3A notifications, but had to precede the Section 3D acquisition declaration. Using Article 142, the Court excluded the clearance process from the statutory acquisition timeline; validity of the clearances themselves remained open.

Issues

1. Whether Union legislative and executive power permits declaration of a new national highway over greenfield land.
2. Whether changing the approved project alignment justified judicial interference.
3. At what stage environmental and forest clearances are required, and how their pursuit affects the Section 3D timeline.
4. Whether preliminary acquisition notifications justified mutation of land into the acquiring authority’s name.

Provisions considered

• Article 246; Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 23 and List II, Entry 13, Constitution of IndiaRead the national-highways field expansively, permitting legislation for new highways and connected acquisition notwithstanding incidental overlap with State roads. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36)
• Article 257, Constitution of IndiaRejected the claim that Union executive power excluded construction of new national highways over greenfield land. (¶¶ 28, 29, 37)
• Section 2(2), National Highways Act, 1956Held that the power to declare other national highways is not confined to existing roads or highways. (¶¶ 30, 31, 36, 38, 41)
• Sections 3A, 3B and 3C, National Highways Act, 1956Distinguished preliminary acquisition, feasibility surveys and objections from project execution; no prior environmental or forest clearance was necessary before the preliminary notification. (¶¶ 33, 34, 50, 52, 55, 61, 62)
• Section 3D(1)–(3), including proviso, National Highways Act, 1956Required clearances before final acquisition declaration and treated pursuit of them through finality as a court-ordered stay for computing the one-year period. (¶¶ 33, 70, 71, 72, 73)
• Article 142, Constitution of IndiaInvoked plenary power to exclude time spent obtaining environmental and forest permissions from the Section 3D(3) timeline. (¶¶ 71, 72)
• Paragraphs 2 and 6; Schedule, item 7(f), Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006Distinguished securing and identifying land from construction or land preparation requiring clearance; permitted parallel pursuit of clearance and acquisition. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 68, 69, 70)

Held

• Union competence over national highways includes declaring a new highway across land where no road exists and acquiring land for it. The Central Government’s statutory and executive powers are not restricted to upgrading an existing State highway. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41)
• The expert committee’s reasoned substitution of the Chennai–Salem national corridor was within the approved programme’s permitted flexibility. The High Court could not substitute its assessment of alignment or material sufficiency for a lawful, informed policy decision. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
• Prior environmental or forest clearance is not a prerequisite to a Section 2(2) declaration or Section 3A preliminary acquisition notification. Survey and feasibility activities under Section 3B differ from executing the project. The acquisition and environmental hearings serve distinct purposes; acquisition approval cannot displace a refusal of environmental or forest permission. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65)
• The final acquisition declaration under Section 3D must await site-specific environmental and forest clearances. Acquisition and clearance processes may proceed in parallel until that stage. By interpretation and Article 142, the Court treated the clearance restriction as a stay for Section 3D(3), excluding time spent pursuing permissions until their grant or refusal attained finality. (¶¶ 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72)
• For the impugned notifications, the exclusion extended through this judgment or finality of the clearances, whichever was later. The Court did not finally determine whether every notification survived; if any still lapsed, fresh acquisition notifications could be issued for land within the site-specific permissions. (¶ 73)
• The consultant’s appointment contract and eligibility had not been challenged by a specific prayer. Any appointment irregularity did not justify invalidating the independently reasoned policy decision or statutory notifications; the Court declined further examination of that appointment. (¶ 74)
• A Section 3A notification alone neither vested the land nor gave possession to the acquiring authority. Premature mutation entries had to be reversed. The validity of environmental and forest permissions was not decided and could be challenged before the appropriate forum. (¶¶ 76, 77, 78, 80)

Result

Union and NHAI appeals partly allowed; landowners’ appeal dismissed. Challenges to Sections 2(2) and 3A notifications rejected, but restoration of premature mutation entries upheld. Acquisition may proceed in accordance with law and the clearance/timeline directions; no costs.