Rajasthan High Court set aside acquisition proceedings of a land parcel in Shahpura, Alwar, that was within 1 km of Sariska Tiger Reserve, allocated by the National Highway Authority of India (“NHAI”) to construct “public utility area” including fuel station and kiosks, despite recommendations by other authorities to shift the project to alternative sites.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that the term “public utility” could not be used to ignore all the statutory restrictions. Public purpose is a condition for exercising power of compulsory acquisition and not an exemption from compliance with other applicable laws. The Court further observed,

“…the respondents intend to construct Fuel Station and Kiosks also in the alleged public utility areas, which are apparently commercial purposes. The expression “public utility” cannot by itself operate as a legal solvent capable of dissolving all statutory restrictions. The character of an activity has to be determined by its actual nature, its location and the regulatory framework applicable thereto. Even a project serving a public purpose must comply with the law relating to forests, wildlife, environment and land use.”

For context, the Court was hearing a petition that challenged order of the competent authorities of NHAI wherein the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1951 (the “Act”), were rejected.

A portion of petitioner's land was acquired by the respondent authorities for building, widening, maintenance and management of NH-248A, in Alwar. Under this plan, one part of this acquired land was allocated for constructing a “rest area” for public which fell within 1 Km from the Sariska Tiger Reserve. Hence, the appellants objected.

These objections results in examinations by the concerned authority, leading to a report that recommended that it would be feasible to shift the proposed rest area to some other site. Hence, the authorities initially accepted the objection and started exploring alternative sites.

Despite this, subsequently, the proposal of the rest area at the same site was revived on the ground that it shall be made for public utility facilities, and thus, it would not violate the statutory restriction. The respondent department also ignored a subsequent communication by the Forest Department reiterating the restriction.

Eventually, the competent authority rejected the objections by the petitioners. Hence, the petitions were filed.

It was argued that merely by describing the proposed rest area as a Public Utility Facility, the authorities could not disregard binding environmental and forest restrictions. It was submitted that public utility could be achieved by selecting a site that did not come in conflict with applicable environmental restrictions.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that power under Section 3A of the Act that empowered acquisition for public purposes was not unregulated, and the acquisition had to be for a lawful public purpose and its consequential use shall also be capable of being undertaken in a lawful manner.

The Court highlighted initial agreement of the respondent-authority to find an alternative site, and held that the subsequent deviation necessarily required cogent reasons that explained the change of position.

Furthermore, the Court took into account the communication by the Forest Department, and observed,

“The said communication was issued by the department concerned with the protection and management of the forest and wildlife area. In these circumstances, the National Highways authorities could not simply brush aside the said communication by obtaining an administrative clarification that the proposed Rest Area was a public utility facility…Government's own environmental restrictions have to be respected by all instrumentalities of the State and that development activities in the vicinity of protected forests cannot be undertaken in disregard of the regulatory framework.”

The Court further held that function of competent authority under Section 3C of the Act was not discharged merely by reproducing the objection and concluding that such objections were rejected. There had to be application of mind to the substance of objection and communication of reasons for their non-acceptance.

“Section 3C of the Act of 1956 permits an objection concerning the use of the land. Where such an objection is supported by official documents emanating from other Government departments and by reports of committees constituted by the administration itself, the competent authority is required to deal with such material in a rational and intelligible manner.”

It was further observed that once a legally vulnerable alternative was available, authorities could not ignore it without cogent reasons, and insist upon compulsory acquisition of private agricultural land situated within a protected/restricted zone.

In this background, the petition was allowed and the Court set aside the acquisition proceedings to the extent of the land that was allocated for constructing the rest area.

Title: Buddalal & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 353

Click Here To Read/Download Order