Constitution of India – Arts.246, 248 – Union List, Entry 23 – Declaration of open green-field lands as national highway – Legislative competence of Parliament to enact law for – Development/construction of Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem (National Corridor) [C-K-S (NC)] 8 Lanes new National Highway (NH-179A and NH-179B) being part of the larger Project (Bharatmala Pariyojna-Phase I) – Notifications issued u/s.2(2), 1956 Act declaring C-K-S (NC) as a national highway stretch/section (NH179A and NH-179B) – Notifications u/s.3A(1), 1956 Act specifying the lands proposed to be acquired for the national highway(s) issued for the concerned stretches/sections – Challenged – High Court inter alia held notifications issued u/s.3A(1) as illegal – On appeal, held: 1956 Act authorises Central Government to declare the notified stretches/sections in the State concerned as a highway to be a national highway; and for matters connected therewith including acquisition of “any land” for building or construction of a new highway (which need not be an existing road/highway) – Nothing in the Constitution or the 1956 Act limits this power only in respect of existing roads/highways within the State – Substance of this Act is ascribable to Entry 23, Union List and matters connected therewith – Expression “highway” has not been defined in the 1956 Act or 1988 Act – Central Government is fully competent to notify “any land” (not necessarily an existing road/highway) for acquisition, to construct a highway to be a national highway – Further, at the stage of issuing notifications u/ss.2(2) or 3A there is no need to seek prior environmental/forest clearance – Clearance is required to be obtained by the executing agency “before commencing the actual work or executing the proposed work/project” – Also, there is no substance in the argument that the change of stretch/section from Chennai-Madurai (Economic Corridor) [C-M (EC)] originally included in the Project to C-K-S (NC) as regards State of Tamil Nadu was not based on tangible material – Challenge to impugned notifications u/ss.2(2) and 3A negatived – Impugned judgment modified to the extent indicated – National Highways Act, 1956 – ss.2(2), 3A – National Highway Rules, 1957 – National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 – ss.3, 11-13, 16 – Doctrine of pith and substance –Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious Construction. Constitution of India – Union List, Entry 23; State List, Entry 13 – Held: Fact that Entry 13 of List II bestows exclusive power upon the legislature of any State concerning subject “roads”, cannot be the basis to give restricted meaning to Entry 23 in List I, dealing with all matters concerning “national highways”. National Highways Act, 1956 – Scheme of – ss.2, 3, 3A-3J, 4-6, 9 – Discussed. Constitution of India – Part XI, Chapter II – Art.257 – Held: Art.257 expounds about the control of the Union over States in certain cases – Clause (2) predicates that the executive power of the Union shall also extend to giving directions to a State as to the construction and maintenance of means of communication declared to be of national and military importance – Proviso makes it clear that power of the Parliament is not restricted in any way to the matters specified therein. Land Acquisition – Judicial review – Scope of – Discussed. National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988– ss.11-13 – Scope of – Discussed. National Highways Act, 1956 – Public hearing under – Purpose of – Discussed – National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. National Highways Act, 1956 – ss.3A, 3D(3) – Declaration u/s.3D not issued within one year from the date of publication of the notification u/s.3A – Deemed lapse of notification u/s.3A predicated in s.3D(3) – Held: It is possible that whilst pursuing the proposal for environmental/forest clearance after notification u/ s.3A, some time may be lost, even though the process under the 1956 Act for acquisition of the land had become ripe for issue of declaration of acquisition u/s.3D – To get over this predicament, the dictum in paragraph 100(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa & Ors. reported as [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 12 shall operate as a stay by an order of the Court for purposes of s.3D(3) in respect of all projects under the 1956 Act, in particular for excluding the time spent after issue of s.3A notification, in obtaining the environmental clearance as well as for permissions under the forest laws – Constitution of India – Art.142.