WHEN DOES ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE BECOME MANDATORY IN NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACQUISITION? MADRAS HC DECODES PV KRISHNAMURTHY ANANT MANDGI V. UNION OF INDIA & NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA | W.P. NOS. 29753 & 29755 OF 2019 | HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASrasras | Justice Krishnan Ramasamy | 26.02.2026

WHEN DOES ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE BECOME MANDATORY IN

NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACQUISITION? MADRAS HC DECODES PV KRISHNAMURTHY

ANANT MANDGI V. UNION OF INDIA & NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA | W.P.

NOS. 29753 & 29755 OF 2019 | HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASrasras | Justice Krishnan Ramasamy | 26.02.2026

The Madras High Court has rendered a significant judgment clarifying the stage at which Environmental Clearance (EC) becomes a mandatory legal obligation in the process of land acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956. Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, conducting a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Project Director v. P.V. Krishnamurthy [(2021) 3 SCC 572], held that the obligation to obtain EC crystallises only before the commencement of actual construction work or implementation of the project which would happen after the acquired land is vested with NHAI by the Central Government, which would occur subsequent to the vesting of land to the Central Government which would happen subsequent to the issuance of the 3D Notification.
Background
The petitioner, Anant Mandgi, owned lands at Bairamangalam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, which were notified for acquisition in connection with the formation of National Highway NH 948A. Following a Section 3A(1) notification dated 12.07.2018 and an enquiry process, the Central Government issued a Section 3D(1) Declaration on 08.03.2019. The petitioner challenged the declaration, inter alia, on the ground that no Environmental Clearance had been obtained by the respondents prior to its issuance, which he argued was squarely contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in PV Krishnamurthy.
Question of Law
Whether the Section 3D(1) Notification dated 08.03.2019, issued without first obtaining Environmental Clearance, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Project Director v. P.V. Krishnamurthy [(2021) 3 SCC 572]?
PV Krishnamurthy is not in consonance with its findings:-
The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of PV Krishnamurthy had categorically held that the EIA Notification of 2006 does not in any manner restrict the Central Government’s power to issue notifications under Section 3A of the 1956 Act. There is nothing in the 2006 Notification to suggest that prior environmental or forest clearance is required before expressing an intention to acquire land.
The Apex court held that,
“…..prior environmental clearance in terms of 2006 notification issued under Section
3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Act read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, is required to be taken before commencement of the “actual construction or building work” of the national highway by the executing agency (NHAI). That will happen only after the acquisition proceedings are taken to its logical end until the land finally vests in the NHAI or is entrusted to it by the Central Government for building/management of the national highway.”
On this basis, the High Court firmly concluded that Environment Clearance Certificate is required to be acquired before the commencement of the actual construction of National Highway which happens only after the land is entrusted to NHAI by Central Government and held mere issuance of a Section 3D Notification does not amount to or cannot be construed as commencement of any construction work or preparation of land.
While one part of the Apex Court’s judgment is consistent with the text of the 2006 Notification and the 2014 Office Memorandum by holding that EC is required only before commencement of construction work subsequent to the entrustment of land by Central Government to NHAI, while another part of the very same judgment states that the Section 3D declaration should be made only after environmental or forest clearance for the specific land is granted, which the Madras High Court found as not in consonant with each other. The Court has respectfully taken the first part into consideration and rendered the judgment.
However, with regard to the reverting the unutilized land back to the land owners, the Court observed that there was no restriction as to revertment of the unutilized lands to land owners by the Authorities under National Highways Act. It is implied that the authorities who possess the power to acquire land under Section 3A of the 1956 Act, will have the same ability to revert back the unutilized lands to the land owners. Hence, he observed that even where the National Highways Act does not expressly provide for reversion, a landowner whose land was acquired but whose purpose was never fulfilled would still be entitled to seek return of the land by making an appropriate application and the respondent Department would be bound to return it. Owing to the implied duty vested upon the Department which makes this alternative protection available to land owners, the Court found that the rationale underlying the Supreme Court’s position was sufficiently addressed.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras rendered this judgment in reference to the view of Apex Court and held:-
“There is no bar for obtaining Environmental Clearance up to the stage of entrustment of land with NHAI by the Government , but before the commencement of construction work or preparation of land, the NHAI must obtain Environmental Clearance Certificate”
The Section 3D Notification was held to be valid and the writ petition was dismissed.