Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

National Highways Act, 1956

22 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

A. ABDUL FAROOKversusMUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PERAMBALUR & ORS.

2009 INSC 98331 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O. Ms. No.32 (1998) permitting the erection of statues and arches on highways. After the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 came into force, the State, through its Secretary, granted permission to install permanent arches on two major district roads. The High Court held that because the ar

GAYATRI BALASAMYversusM/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

2025 INSC 60530 April 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a long‑standing controversy over whether courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can modify an arbitral award. The issue arose from the earlier decision in Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, where the Court held that

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 128927 November 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of writ petitions filed by Hindustan Construction Company Ltd seeking to strike down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the deletion of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment, arguing that they revived an automatic‑stay of arbitral awards and removed th

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITYOFversusSAYEDABAD TEA COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.

2019 INSC 95727 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) acquired land for a highway and the compensation awarded by the competent authority was challenged by Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd. The aggrieved party applied to the Central Government under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the appointment of an arbitrat

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHIM SAIN GOEL AND ORS.

2022 INSC 47225 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 2003, followed by a declaration in 2004 and an award in 2005 for land needed for a road project. The respondents obtained interim stay orders that prevented DDA from taking possession, and later filed a writ petition und

GUNASEKARANversusTHE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS & ORS.

2021 INSC 42024 August 2021

The appellants were served with show‑cause notices alleging encroachment on land forming part of a National Highway. The notices were issued under Section 28(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001 and were said to be backed by a notification issued under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956. The appe

COMPETENT AUTHORITYversusBARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND ORS.

2005 INSC 58523 November 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a Central Government notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 that sought to acquire land for a highway. The petitioners argued that the notification failed to give a brief description of the land and lacked a plan, rendering it invalid. The Court held that the notific

KIRPAL SINGHversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.

2024 INSC 94421 November 2024Disposed off

The appellant's land was acquired under the National Highways Act, leading to an arbitral award on 25 July 2011. A regular first appeal was filed on 20 October 2011, but the High Court registry notified defects on 9 November 2011, which the appellant's counsel received only on 20 January 2012. Consequently, the appella

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTARSEM SINGH & ORS.

2019 INSC 99619 September 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, which excludes the Land Acquisition Act's provisions on solatium and interest, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that solatium is an integral part of compensation for compulsory acquisition and that the 1997 amendmen

HANS RAJ AND SONSversusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

2002 INSC 30417 July 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Notification SRO 348 dated 20 August 1982, which imposed an additional toll of Rs 0.06 per kilogram on dry fruits such as almonds, walnuts and kernels exported from Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioners argued that the levy was a fee requiring quid‑pro‑quo and that the State had no

M/S. SOMA ISOLUX NH ONE TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHARISH KUMAR PURI & ORS.

2014 INSC 29217 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s. Soma Isolux NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd., entered into a BOT concession agreement with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to construct, operate and maintain a six‑laning of NH‑1. The High Court, while entertaining a public‑interest writ, cancelled the concession agreement, imposed heavy fin

KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusBIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS

2024 INSC 435416 May 2024Dismissed

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation claimed it had acquired the land of Bimal Kumar Shah under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which it argued gave it power to acquire land for streets and parks. The High Court held that Section 352 does not confer a power of compulsory acquisition and set asi

CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 88514 December 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna, a project to widen about 900 km of national highways in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand, which includes three strategic border roads. Environmental groups challenged the project before the National Green Tribunal, leading to the formation of a High Po

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNITversusP.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

2020 INSC 6888 December 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of notifications issued under Sections 2(2) and 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 that declared a green‑field stretch (C‑K‑S) as National Highways NH‑179A and NH‑179B and authorised land acquisition for the Chennai‑Krishnagiri‑Salem corridor. The Court held that Parliament, u

IN RE: MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASHversusABC

2024 INSC 8636 November 2024Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the demolition of Manoj Tibrewal’s ancestral house, which had been declared part of a national‑highway widening project. The State authorities demolished the house after only a public “munadi” announcement, without any written notice, without disclosing the extent of encroachment, the width o

STATE OF WEST BENGALversusM.R. MONDAL AND ANR.

2001 INSC 4233 September 2001

The State of West Bengal awarded a one‑year franchise to M.R. Mondal for toll collection on a stretch of the Durgapur Expressway, but Mondal defaulted on payments and sought extensions through a memorandum issued by the Joint Secretary. The memorandum purported to allow collection for up to 30 years, and the High Court

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusTARSEM SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 1463 February 2025Dismissed

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification on whether the Supreme Court's 2019 judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which mandated payment of solatium and interest to landowners whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act, should operate only prospectiv

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusT. YOUNIS & ANR.

2026 INSC 6162 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) sought arbitration under the National Highways Act for compensation relating to land acquisition, resulting in an arbitral award on 03‑02‑2022. Both parties filed applications under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were dismissed by the arbit

BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ AND OTHERSversusGOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 31 January 2025Disposed off

The appellants purchased residential plots in Bengaluru between 1995 and 1997, which were later acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under a preliminary notification dated 29 January 2003. Although possession was taken in 2005, no compensation award was made until a Special Land Acquisit

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search