Patna HC Quashes NHAI's Blank Notice, Imposes Rs 5,000 Cost for Irresponsible Encroachment Warning
The Patna High Court quashed an undated, unnumbered NHAI notice sent to a Muzaffarpur landowner, calling it an act of irresponsibility by an important government authority, and directed a fresh proper notice before any demarcation or demolition proceeds.
The National Highways Authority of India sent a landowner in Muzaffarpur a notice warning him to vacate what it described as an unauthorised encroachment on highway land — but every critical column in that notice was left blank. No date. No letter number. No details of the land. No area specified. Only a digital signature appeared on the form. Justice Rajiv Roy, sitting singly at the Patna High Court, quashed the notice on 28 July 2026, imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on the NHAI payable to the petitioner within four weeks, and directed the authority to issue a proper notice before any further action could proceed.
The Land and the Dispute
Ramanand Singh, a resident of Village Bhusra under Police Station Gaighat in Muzaffarpur District, held land at two parcels: Khata No. 163, Khesra Nos. 583 and 585, measuring 12 decimal in Village Hasna Gadi under Gaighat Anchal, and Khata No. 544, Khesra No. 953, measuring 9 decimal in Village Bhusara under the same Anchal.
A part of Singh's land was acquired for the construction of National Highway No. 527 “C” (Majhauli–Choraut, S.H.). After the acquisition and subsequent highway construction, Singh made further construction on the portion that had not been acquired. It was at that stage that the NHAI's Project Implementation Unit at Muzaffarpur issued him a notice under Section 26(2) of the National Highways Control (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, directing him to remove the alleged encroachment within seven days.
Singh approached the Patna High Court by way of a civil writ petition. He sought a mandamus directing the respondents to demarcate the remaining unacquired portion of his land before taking any demolition action, and to refrain from demolishing any construction on that unacquired portion prior to such demarcation.
A Notice With No Information
The petitioner's counsel drew the court's attention to Annexure P/5, a copy of the notice issued by the NHAI. The form, on its face, purported to be issued under Section 26(2) of the National Highways Control (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. It bore the letterhead of the NHAI's Project Implementation Unit at Muzaffarpur.
Every substantive field was unfilled. The serial number of the notice was blank. The date was blank. The name of the highway was blank. The kilometre range was blank. The name of the noticee and the specific land details were absent. The space for the date of the hearing was blank. The only completed element was a digital signature, dated 18 June 2026, attributed to one Ashutosh Sinha as the authorised officer.
Counsel for both the State and the NHAI, when confronted with the notice in court, acknowledged that it could not be treated as a proper notice.
The Court's Reasoning
Justice Roy did not restrict his remarks to a technical finding of procedural deficiency. The court expressed surprise that an important authority of the Government of India had issued a notice in what it described as an irresponsible manner.
The judgment noted that a bare look at the notice reflected that it had been sent by clerical staff, given that “not a single column is filled save and except the digital signature of the officer.” The court's concern was not merely that the notice was incomplete, but that the recipient — a landowner whose property had already been partially acquired for a public project — had been put through mental agony without being told anything meaningful about what the authority actually intended to do or where.
An encroachment notice under Section 26(2) of the 2002 Act carries consequences: failure to comply can expose a person to penalties and forcible removal from highway land. Issuing such a notice without any of the particulars that would allow the recipient to understand the charge, identify the land in question, or meaningfully respond is, in the court's view, an exercise of authority in a manner that falls far short of what the law requires.
Directions Issued
The court quashed the unnumbered and undated notice. It made clear, however, that the NHAI retains the option to issue a proper notice to the petitioner. Once a proper notice is issued, the petitioner, the State-respondents, and the NHAI are to jointly fix a date for demarcation of the unacquired portion of Singh's land.
On the question of costs, the court held that the mental agony caused to the petitioner needed to be compensated. A cost of Rs 5,000 was imposed on the NHAI, to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks. The NHAI was given the liberty to recover this amount from the erring official after fixing responsibility in accordance with law.
Outcome
The writ petition was disposed of on 28 July 2026. The NHAI's notice issued under Section 26(2) of the National Highways Control (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 was quashed. The NHAI was directed to pay Rs 5,000 to Ramanand Singh within four weeks, with the right to recover the amount from the responsible official. Any fresh action regarding encroachment on the highway land must be preceded by a proper notice, after which the parties are to jointly demarcate the unacquired land.