No Possession, No Acquisition – Andhra Pradesh High Court Enforces Constitutional Due Process in Highway Land Disputes

“Unless physical possession is taken, acquisition is not complete”: AP High Court Reiterates Right to Property Under Article 300-A Must Be Respected. In a significant ruling delivered by Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, disposed of a batch of writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956, on grounds of procedural illegality and constitutional violations. In Writ Petition Nos. 26412, 26416, 26418, 26423, 26425, 26428, 26434, 26474, 26475 & 26497 of 2025, the Court directed the Union of India and State authorities to strictly adhere to the due process of law before proceeding with acquisition and dispossession, reaffirming the fundamental protection granted under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

This decision is significant as it underscores that land acquisition without complete statutory compliance — particularly proper notification and physical possession — is constitutionally untenable. The ruling strengthens the jurisprudence on right to property and reaffirms that mere issuance of compensation does not amount to valid acquisition.

Petitioners Allege Illegal Land Acquisition Without Gazette Notification

The case arose when a group of landowners (petitioners) from Vizianagaram District approached the High Court, alleging that respondents, including the National Highways Authority and various state functionaries, had initiated steps to acquire their land without proper notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956. According to the petitioners, while a Gazette notification was issued in 2022 under Section 3A, not all their properties were included.

Subsequently, a declaration under Section 3D was published in the Gazette on 03.07.2024, and compensation proceedings under Section 3G(3) were initiated. However, the petitioners asserted that their lands were being interfered with despite the absence of any valid acquisition under law, amounting to unauthorised dispossession.

They invoked Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property, stating that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law, and sought the Court’s protection against arbitrary acquisition.

Article 300-A and Procedural Safeguards

The central legal issue was whether land can be acquired or possession interfered with under the National Highways Act without strict compliance with the statutory framework, and whether such actions violate the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A.

The petitioners contended that:

• The initial notification under Section 3A did not cover their lands.

• Subsequent declarations and compensation proceedings were not in accordance with law.

• Possession was sought to be taken without due notification, which amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law.

The respondents, represented by Sri Yogesh (Central Government Counsel), Sri Y. Balaji (GP for Respondent No.3), and Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy (GP for Respondents 4 to 6), submitted that no acquisition had been completed yet, and they would adhere to due process before proceeding further.

Acquisition Requires Full Compliance – Notice, Hearing, Compensation & Possession

Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, (2024) 10 SCC 533, the High Court emphasized that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and cannot be curtailed without following the authority of law.

The Court cited the seven core rights that must be respected before any acquisition, as laid down in Bimal Kumar Shah, which are:

“(i) Right to Notice, (ii) Right to be Heard, (iii) Right to a Reasoned Decision, (iv) Duty to Acquire Only for Public Purpose, (v) Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation, (vi) Right to an Efficient and Expeditious Process, and (vii) Right of Conclusion.”

The Court held: “These seven principles… are integral to the authority of law enabling compulsory acquisition… Their absence would render the law susceptible to challenge.”

Further, the Court clarified that mere disbursal of compensation does not constitute valid acquisition, unless physical possession is also taken:

“The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete.”

The High Court reaffirmed that compliance with Sections 3A, 3D, and 3G of the National Highways Act is mandatory, and any attempt to dispossess landowners without following the statutory process would be constitutionally invalid.

Due Process is Non-Negotiable in Land Acquisition

Disposing of the writ petitions, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the respondent authorities to strictly follow due process before acquiring the lands of the petitioners. While the Court refrained from granting specific reliefs or costs, the ruling sends a clear message against arbitrary acquisition practices, reinforcing both statutory and constitutional safeguards.

In effect, the Court has reiterated that possession without process is a violation, and that Article 300-A requires more than token compliance — it demands procedural integrity.

"The respondents are directed to follow due process of law before acquiring the writ petitioners’ land. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Date of Decision: 24 September 2025