THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Project Director (A/C)

(e) Mere perusal of the said order established the fact that theobjections already filed by the petitioner and others, were rejectedby the first respondent and a direction was issued to the secondrespondent not to deviate the present bye-pass road alignment and totake necessary action to give suitable compensation to the landowners and in the said order, it is stated that already Section 3-C(2) enquiry under the National Highways Act, was completed by thesecond respondent. The above order annexed along with the enquirynotice is nothing but a mockery of quasi-judicial process and opposedto all canons of quasi-judicial function by the competent authority.Therefore, the petitioner and other land owners were forced to makean objection on 2.6.2011 and also an additional objection on the sameday before the second respondent stating that he had no jurisdictionto conduct an enquiry in view of the order dated 25.5.2011 passed bythe first respondent who is the superior officer to the secondrespondent.(f) On going through the objections, the second respondent,shouted against the petitioner and refused to conduct an enquiry andleft to his office room. However, his subordinate, who claims to be aLand Acquisition Tahsildar, put some questions on the petitioner andhis answers were recorded in a white paper and also obtainedsignature of the petitioner and abruptly directed the petitioner toleave the office, except this nothing happened on that date and noenquiry was conducted inspite of the demand made by the petitioner.Therefore, the petitioner and others have no other option except toleave the place. The second respondent adopted the same method in theenquiry held on different dates. (g) Under the provisions of National Highways Act, the competentauthority has to follow certain procedures, but both the respondentshave not followed the same, which vitiates the entire notificationitself, besides that, the first respondent has decided to theobjections raised by the land owners on 25.5.2011 even before theenquiry dated 7.6.2011 and also furnished the copy of the same to thepetitioner as well as the other individuals who are similarly placed.The second respondent in his office proceedingsNa.Ka.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-3, dated 20.7.2011 rejected the objectionfiled by the petitioner. The mere perusal of the order clearlyindicates the fact that the competent authority has not consideredany of the objections and jurisdictional point raised by thepetitioner. (h) The respondents without following the statutory proceduresand provisions of the Act, hurriedly made an attempt to lay the bye-pass road at the instigation of the contractor. Therefore, at anymoment, they may commence the work inside the Gingee town and if oncethe work commences, it will create chaos, and confusion, which leadsto agitation by the general public. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) Therefore, for these reasons, the petitioner, having noother alternative remedy, except to invoke the jurisdiction of thisCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filingW.P.No.18688 of 2011 to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records relating to the paper publication dated3.12.2010 made in Tamil Newspaper "Dinamani", Chennai edition and theorder made in NHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-K'Giri/LA/2011/625, dated 21.5.2011 bythe first respondent and the order made inNa.Ka.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-3, dated 20.7.2011 passed by the secondrespondent and quash the same and consequently forbear therespondents 1 and 2 from laying Gingee by-pass road in Tindivanam toKrishnagiri Section of NH-66 pursuant to the notification dated3.12.2010 made in Tamil newspaper "Dinamani", Chennai Edition by thefirst respondent in terms of alignment proposal-III through thepetitioner's land comprised in R.S.No.68/1A2 situate at SakkarapuramVillage, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.4. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the followinggrounds:4.1. The impugned paper notification dated 3.12.2010, the orderdated 21.5.2011 passed by the first respondent and the order dated20.7.2011 issued by the second respondent suffers from illegality,irregularity and in excess of jurisdiction.4.2. The first respondent has not described the lesser extent ofthe land out of larger extent of proposed lands to be acquired, andit has not been properly described by giving the name of the owner,boundaries and measurements. Therefore, the owners of the land is notin a position to know which is the exact portion of the land that therespondents sought to acquire. Because of the vagueness and lack ofmaterial particulars, the notification itself is non-est in law interms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (13) SCC477 (Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory).4.3. The alignment Option-III for proposed Gingee bye-pass isunworkable and it will take away the purpose for which a bye-passroad is proposed for Gingee town, since 1/4th of the Gingee town willbe affected by laying the bye-pass road, which passes through theGingee town itself.4.4. The respondents have failed to take note of the fact that aduty is cast upon the acquiring authority who has delegated his powerto private consultancy service, namely M/s.Mukesh & Associates todecide the alignment which will not take care of the hardship thathas to be undergone by the general public, but on the other hand, theCollector is only interested in making big profit by doing lesserwork. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.5. The respondents 1 and 2 should have accepted the proposalmade by the District Collector in his report dated 31.8.2010, sinceit will not cause hardship to the petitioner and the other landowners.4.6. The first respondent erred in passing the order dated21.5.2011, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and theother land owners and holding that the enquiry under the said Act wasalready done and a direction was given to the second respondent toascertain the compensation which has made the proposed enquiry whichwas to be held on 2.6.2011 as fatal, meaningless, academic in natureand violative of principles of natural justice.4.7. The respondents failed to note that the mandatory procedureas contemplated under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, has notbeen followed, which will vitiate the entire notification itself.4.8. The respondents have failed to take note of the fact thatunder law, it is well settled principle that where a statute requiresa particular thing or act to be done in a particular manner, it hasto be done only in that manner and if there is any deviation ofprocedure as contemplated under the Act, it will vitiate the entireexercise of power.4.9. The respondents have failed to note that in thenotification, the land owner names have not been indicated and such afailure vitiates the entire proceedings.4.10. The second respondent ought to have followed the procedurecontemplated under Section 3-C(2) of the said Act and failure tofollow the same, vitiates the entire procedure.4.11. The first respondent failed to comply with the mandatoryrequirement as contemplated under Section 3-A(3) of the said Act andthe publication was given only in the Tamil newspaper, ChennaiEdition, and to his knowledge, publication has not been issued inEnglish newspaper and the Tamil newspaper Dinamani is not largelycirculated in the Gingee town.4.12. The acquisition proceedings initiated by the firstrespondent is contrary to the project report wherein, Gingee bye-passshould start at 63/090 km and end with 71/260 km to the total lengthof 10.76 kms, but the same was reduced 4.77 kms. at the cost of greatloss and prejudice to the petitioner and others.4.13. The objections raised by the petitioner and others weresimply rejected without assigning any reasons and the alignmentoptions were not made by the Government Engineers, but only by anindividual company. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.14. The first respondent, in Clause 1.4.3 of the report heldthat across Sankarabarani river, a bridge should be constructed, butcontradictory to the said stand, now rejected the plea of theCollector on the ground that the construction of the bridge to thelength of 308 metres will cost substantial amount and thereby put thegeneral public in hardship even without considering the objectionssubmitted by the District Collector dated 31.8.2010.4.15. The respondents are more particular and concerned aboutthe cost of construction than the environment, which attitude of therespondents cause substantial loss, not only to the property, butalso to the human life by inhaling carbon monoxide emanated from thepassage of heavy vehicles inside the Gingee town.4.16. The respondents have failed to note that if the alignmentoption-III is adopted, it will cause great inconvenience to theschool going children, but these aspects were not even considered byany of the authority, and they are more concerned only about themoney, but not the value for the human life.4.17. The second respondent in the impugned order dated20.7.2011 has not considered and discussed several objections raisedby the petitioner and the consequences thereon, but simply rejectedthe objections holding that mistakes will be rectified and therefore,the order of rejection is not objective and reasonable.4.18. The second respondent has not mentioned the objectionsraised by the petitioner in the tabular column contained in theimpugned order, but mechanically stated as if the petitioner hasraised only the market value of the lands and alternative way. Thesaid approach of the second respondent vitiates the entireproceedings.4.19. The second respondent has not conducted any enquiry on2.6.2011 as mentioned in the order, but left the place abruptlyinstructing his subordinates to get the signature of the petitionerin a written statement, even without giving an opportunity to him toverify the same.4.20. The impugned order passed by the second respondent is onlysuggestive in nature and the said suggestion will go to show that theobjections raised by the petitioner are valid. Under the saidcircumstances, the second respondent has accepted the petitioner'splea of re-alignment.4.21. The second respondent has not given any valid reason fornot putting up the bridge across the river, except simply statingthat there is no place to bend the bye-pass road without evensupplying sufficient documentary evidence and the report of thetechnical persons to substantiate the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.22. The second respondent ought to have considered theobjections raised by the petitioner independently, but simplyrejected the same based on the order dated 27.6.2011 passed by thefirst respondent. The said approach of the second respondent has madethe enquiry as an eye-wash and without application of mind.4.23. In any event, the impugned orders passed by therespondents are illegal, unsound and liable to be set aside by thisCourt. 5. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit, inter-aliastating as follows:5.1. The writ petitions are neither maintainable in law nor onfacts and the same are liable to be dismissed in limine, as they aredevoid of merits. National Highways Authority of India has taken upthe project of improving NH-66 in the stretch from Tindivanam toKrishnagiri for rehabilitation and upgrading to 2 lane with pavedshoulders configuration of the stretch with by-passes for built uparea of the towns. The Project Implementation Unit, Villupuram hasbeen entrusted with the task of implementing the above project. As apart of the project which aims to reduce congestion and to ensurefree flow of the traffic at Gingee Town, a by-pass road has beenproposed and the Special District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, 2ndrespondent herein, has been appointed as Competent Authority foracquisition of private properties required for the formation of theby-pass. Initially, National Highways Authority of India proposed 4laning of the Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnagiri section fromKm.38/150 214/00 of NH-66 and the proposed Gingee bypass was to startat Km 63/090 and end at Km 71/260 with a total length of 10.76 km.Subsequently, due to financial constraints, the proposed four lanewas instructed to be restructured as 2 lane by the NHAI and the newalignments were proposed by the detailed project report consultantsfor Gingee bypass. 5.2. The detailed project report consultants proposed for a by-pass on the said 2 lane starting at Km.65.548 at Sakkarapuram andends at Km.68.625 with a length of 4.77 km traversing throughSakkarapuram, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram Villages (which isclaimed to be the Option III in the affidavit filed by thepetitioner). Based on the representations made by the villagersincluding the petitioners, the District Collector, Villupuram on30.1.2010 inspected the alignment proposed by the National HighwaysAuthority of India as well as the alternative alignment suggested bythe petitioners and sent a report dated 5.2.2010 to the Secretary toGovernment, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat,Chennai-9. He suggested that instead of the alignment proposed by theNHAI, the by-pass can be laid starting from Nangilikondan Village,passing through Perumbugai, Melkalavoy, Sirukadambur and KrishnapuramVillages and joining the National Highways skirting the Gingee Fort https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without touching the Gingee Town. By the said letter, he hadrequested the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu to address theNHAI for passing appropriate orders. Thiru.M.Krishnaswamy, Member ofParliament has also requested the Minister of Road Transport andHighways, New Delhi, in this regard.5.3. The Union Minister of Road Transport and Highways, NewDelhi considered the request and held that the aforesaid suggestionis not feasible, vide his letter NHAI/TECH/TN/VIP/2010, dated28.7.2010. The Union Minister rejected the alignments proposed on theground that:(1) The detailed survey of the alternative alignment could becompleted only with the help of District Administration after a lotof resistance from the people due to large scale land acquisition anddemolition of residential structures.(2) The alternative alignment is not only longer and costlier,but also affecting more land, structures and farm wells. (3) It requires construction of a major Bridge acrossSakkarabarani River for 308 m.(4) The longer stretch may also involve increased project costdue to dislocation of large number of structures and farm wells.(5) The project appraisal committee has asked the executants toscale down the cost of the project, whereas, increase in length willautomatically escalate the project cost.5.4. The Special District Revenue Officer/competent Authority,Land Acquisition, Villupuram had initiated action for notification ofthe acquisition of the lands required for the said project underSection 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. However, theDistrict Collector, Villupuram again in his letter dated 31.8.2010had requested the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor PortsDepartment, Secretariat, Chennai-9 to address the NHAI for re-considering their decision regarding Gingee by-pass, since the by-pass proposed by the NHAI is close to the town and it will not servethe purpose of avoiding congestion. The Notification under Section 3-A(1) was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) No.2282No.S.O.2701(E) of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated2.11.2010, notifying the Central Government's intention to acquirethe lands in Krishnapuram, Sirukadambur and Sakkarapuram Villages,Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District comprising an extent of 304579Sq.m., which are required for the formation of the aforesaid by-passroad. The lands in S.Nos.106/2, 106/3, 106/4A & B and 107/5 measuring3640 Sq.m. of Sirukadambur Village, Gingee Taluk owned by thepetitioner were also included in the notification. The substance ofthis notification was published in local newspapers on 3.12.2010 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Dinamani" (Tamil) and "The New Indian Express" (English) as perSection 3-A(3) of the Act. Pursuant to this newspaper publication,the petitioners sent an objection petition to the second respondentherein objecting to the laying of by-pass over the lands owned bythem in Sirukadambur Village and requested the respondents to avoidproceeding further with the proposed Gingee by-pass road and to dropall further action in this matter.5.5. The District Collector, Villupuram in his letter inDo.A./SDRO/LA/NH66/45/2010-5, dated 12.1.2011 addressed to theSecretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9 suggested a slight modification to thealignment proposed by NHAI, wherein, it was suggested that theproposed by-pass may be laid along the Chetpet road prior toSankarabarani River bridge and requested the Secretary to address theNHAI to consider the feasibility of the suggestion. The deviationrecommended by the District Collector was inspected by the ChiefGeneral Manager, NHAI, Chennai and the detailed Project ReportConsultant who had designed the by-pass. The D.P.R. Consultant hadreported that this alignment cannot fulfill the engineeringrequirements of NHAI standards and as such it is not feasible tochange the alignment as recommended by the District Collector. Basedon the observation, the Project Director, NHAI, Villupuram in hisletter NHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-'K'giri/LA/2011/636, dated 24.5.2011 addressedto the District Collector, informing him that the change in alignmentis not feasible. The Project Director, NHAI has also stated that theChetpet road (Option IV in the affidavit) is running along the riverbank and also suggested that the said alignment on the existing roadis forming an acute-bend which is not feasible, since it does notprovide proper curve as per design standards of NHAI. It is also notpossible to construct a bridge across the river, since it is followedby an acute bend. Hence it was considered that the change inalignment to the by-pass is not feasible. The incidental to thepublication of notification in Dailies, 31 land owners and interestedpersons filed their objection before the Special District RevenueOfficer, Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), the secondrespondent herein. The second respondent had forwarded copies of allthe 31 objection petitions received from the land owners to theProject Director, NHAI, the first respondent herein, through hisletter No.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-12, dated 4.3.2011 and sought fortechnical opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners.5.6. The first respondent, vide his letterNo.NHAI/PD/VPM/TDM-'K'giri/LA/2011/625, dated 21.5.2011, offered histechnical opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners. Thefirst respondent has replied to the objection petitions forwardedthrough the letter in No.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-12 dated 4.3.2011 thatthe present alignment was chosen only after detailed topographic andengineering surveys and after due consideration of the engineeringrequirements. The alternative alignment suggested by the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the formation of Gingee By-pass on NH-66 is found not to betechnically feasible. The approved alignment is found to have thefollowing merits:(i) The by-pass will cut across the Sakkarapuram, Sirukadamburand Krishnapuram covering to a shorter length of 4.77 kms.(ii) In Sakkarapuram village, the by-pass will pass throughvacant lands of Adilnagar and only one residential house may beaffected at Adilnagar for the entire by-pass covered by 3 villages.(iii) No buildings or structures in Krishnapuram andSirukadambur villages gets affected due to the formation of the by-pass.(iv) A detailed engineering study has been conducted on variousalignment options before finalizing the present alignment. Thealignment is finalised based on engineering requirements and groundgeometry.(v) Other alignment suggested by some of the land owners hasalso been studied by the consultant and such a possibility is notfeasible.(vi) Further, Gingee Town is surrounded by hills and reserveforests and almost all the available agricultural lands in nearbyvillages have been converted as house-site plots.The detailed project report consultant has chosen the presentalignment for Gingee by-pass considering all the above facts,avoiding the large scale demolishing superstructure, saving ofagricultural lands/irrigation wells and irrigation tanks etc. at themaximum possible extent. 5.7. In the letter No.NHAI/PD/VPM/TDM-'K'giri/LA/2011/625, dated21.5.2011, the Project Director has offered his technical opinion onthe proposed alignment and the alignments suggested by the Collector.The Project Director has further stated that since the tender hasbeen called and finalised for the project of Tindivanm to KrishnagiriSection of NH66 and the notification has been published under Section3-A and the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) is being done, it is notpossible to deviate the present by-pass alignment. The ProjectDirector has requested the Special DRO to take necessary action togive suitable compensation to the land owners as per the provisionsof Section 3G of National Highways Act, since most of the petitionersstated about the value of their lands. The competent authorityconducted the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act on 2/7.6.2011.The writ petitioner participated in the enquiry and presented apetition before the second respondent stating that the ProjectDirector has already rejected all his objections, the enquiry to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conducted is a mere fait accompli and hence wanted the CompetentAuthority to refrain from conducting any further enquiry. The secondrespondent therefore communicated to the first respondent thepetitioner's objection dated 21.12.2010 calling for specific remarkson the issues raised by the petitioner. 5.8. The first respondent in his letterNo.NHAI/PD/VPM/TDM-'K'giri/LA/2011/741, dated 27.6.2011 had offeredhis detailed remarks on each and every objection raised by thepetitioner in his letter dated 21.12.2010. The competent authorityand Special District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, after consideringthe objections filed by the petitioners and after giving adequateopportunity of hearing to the objectors, passed detailed orders asrequired under Section 3-C(2) of the Act in Na.Ka.A./SDRO/Landacquisition/National Highway/958/2010-3 on 20.7.2011. The petitionerseeks to mis-interpret an internal opinion offered by the firstrespondent to the second respondent as an order. The petitioners,with an ulterior motive to thwart the proceedings of landacquisition, has chosen to file this writ petition, permaturelybefore this Court, citing the opinion of the Project Director, PIU,Villupuram, the first respondent, offered to the second respondent asorder. 5.9. The first respondent object the petitioners' allegationthat the detailed project report consultant would not care for thepublic interest and their only interest is to make profit. Suchallegations made against the detailed project report consultants arebaseless and liable to be brushed aside, since the consultants are ofhigh repute and having trained ability and gained experience in thepreparation of detailed project report for the road infrastructuredevelopment, and they have balanced the interest of the Government aswell as public benefits. The detailed project report has beenprepared to address all engineering requirements by technicallyqualified persons and the petitioner who has no technical knowledge,has no expertise and competence to comment on the eminence of thedetailed project report consultants. The by-pass to Gingee is plannedto decongest the traffic in Gingee Town and is aimed to prevent theaccidents at large. All the junction points and road crossings willbe taken care of by providing proper intersections, caution boards,signage to avoid traffic congestions and accidents. The by-pass infact reduces the traffic congestions in the Gingee town, since thevehicular traffic which passes through the Gingee town at present isat large will be diverted through the by-pass and only the localtraffic shall be segregated to ply inside the town.5.10. Further, it is the latest ruling of the Supreme Court ofIndia that the NHAI alone has the expertise in road alignment mattersand that the Courts must be circumspect in such matters. The SupremeCourt in SLP.No.34320-34334 of 2009, dated 21.2.2011 held as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is aprofessionally managed statutory body having expertise in thefield of development and maintenance of National Highways.The projects involving construction of new highways andwidening and development of the existing highways, which arevital for the development of infrastructure in the country,are entrusted to experts in the field of Highways. Itcomprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise inthe field of highway development and maintenance. NHAIprepares and implements project relating to development andmaintenance of national highways after thorough study byexperts in different fields. Detailed project reports areprepared keeping in view the relative factors includingintensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger publicinterest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide uponthe viability and feasibility of the particular project andwhether the particular alignment would subserve the largerpublic interest. In such matter, the scope of judicial reviewis very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition ofland and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, ifit found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law ortainted due to mala-fides. In other hand, neither anyviolation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established,nor, the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore,the order under challenge cannot be sustained."Therefore, it is not bona-fide on the part of the petitioners tofinding fault with the NHAI and the detailed project reportconsultants who are of vast knowledge and expertise in the field ofconstruction development and maintenance of the National Highways.5.11. The alignment and design of the National Highways arefixed by the Project Consultant not on the availability of landalone, but based on the stretch geometry. The by-pass is designedafter duly taking into consideration the large scale demolition ofsettlement, amelioration of public infrastructure like school,business complexes, besides upkeeping and developing of naturaldraining water course, resources of the entire area abutting theproposed highway road and in the vicinity as a whole. Theapprehension of the petitioners about the water-logging andinundation during rainy seasons has already been considered with theaid of the relevant data for the past several years and planning hasalso been made accordingly to mitigate the hardship in the event offloor or rain in this area. The detailed project report consultantsfound that the Option III is more feasible when compared to theoption proposed by the District Collector (Option IV) both intechnical and financial aspects. Further, the District Collector'soption does not fulfil the engineering requirements of the NHAIstandards. The suggested alignment on existing road is having anacute bend and it is not feasible to provide proper curve as per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ design standards of NHAI. The Chetpat road is running along the riverbank and a bridge as suggested by the petitioners shall be followedby an acute bend which would lead to a large number of accidents.5.12. The competent authority is merely an acquisitioning bodywhich acquires the lands required for the formation of the by-pass.He has no technical expertise to answer the issues raised by theinterested persons. The competent authority therefore forwarded theobjections placed before him to the Project Director for his opinionon the issues raised in the objection petitions. The Special DRO whois competent authority to pass order under Section 3-C(2) of the Acthas forwarded opinion of the first respondent along with the noticeto attend the enquiry under Section 3-C(1) to the petitioners in theinterest of giving sufficient opportunity to meet the ends of naturaljustice. The Special DRO has been authorised to act as competentauthority to acquire the required land under the provisions ofSection 3(a) of the Act by virtue of the powers conferred under theAct. The Project Director, NHAI is a requisitioning body, whereas thecompetent authority is acquisitioning authority. The opinion of theProject Director is neither a direction to the second respondent, noran order to the competent authority as stated by the petitioners. Theintention of the Project Director is only to speed up the process ofland acquisition. The petitioners under misconception adduced theground that as per the opinion of the Project Director that theenquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act had been completed, the factremains that the opinion offered by the first respondent is onlyindicated that Section 3-C(2) enquiry is being done. The ProjectDirector in the abovesaid letter has merely requested the competentauthority to conduct the enquiry and dispose of the compensation.Such a request shall not be considered as an order or direction tothe competent authority. Section 3-C(2) of the Act has authorised thecompetent authority to hear the objection and pass orders based onthe objections of the land owners and other interested persons. Themere opinion of the Project Director in the letter dated 21.5.2011shall not bar the jurisdiction of the competent authority to conductenquiry and pass orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act.5.13. The second respondent is a senior public servant and thepetitioner shall not be allowed to misguide the Court with baselessset of facts defaming the repute of a Government official. Theallegation levelled by the petitioner that the respondents havefailed to comply with the provisions of the Act is unsubstantiatedand baseless. The respondents have duly followed the procedurescontemplated in the Act. The petitioner's intention is only tomisconceive and mislead this Court with baseless set of facts. Asstated above, the Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act hasbeen notified in the Gazette of India and caused publication in thetwo local dailies, one in vernacular language on 3.12.2010. Thepetitioners were duly informed of the date of the enquiry to beconducted through the letter of the competent authority, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.5.2011. The Notification is therefore procedurally valid by lawand the petitioners cannot arbitrarily agitate that the Notificationis vague and lacked material particulars and contrary to theprovisions of the Act. The petitioners, having participated in theenquiry on 2/7.6.2011 and seeking for further details on theobjections already filed, has now been knocking the doors of thisCourt with the ulterior intention to delay the process of the landacquisition and thwart the proceedings of the competent authority andSpecial DRO, Villupuram.5.14. The Writ Petitions are not maintainable, for the followinggrounds can be countenanced neither by law nor by facts:(a) The opinion offered by the first respondent dated 21.5.2011shall not be termed as an order and the Project Director has merelyexpressed his anxiety to speed up the process of the land acquisitionand payment of compensation. The notification under Section 3-Aenquiry notice issued on 25.5.2011 by the second respondent does notsuffer from any procedural irregularity and is within itsjurisdiction.(b) The Central Government has notified their intention toacquire the lands and notified the brief description of privateproperties getting involved for the public purpose of building,management and operation of NH-66. The Notification has fulfilled therequirements under Section 3-A(1) and 3-A(2) and the format scheduleprescribed by the Central Government which contains brief descriptionof land including the name of the District, name of the Taluk, nameof the Village, Survey Number of the land, type of land and nature ofthe land and its extent. Hence, there is no contravention in thepublication of Notification as alleged by the petitioner.(c) The alignment of by-pass of Gingee town has been fixed bythe detailed project report consultant and affirmed by the NHAI aftertaking into consideration the various options and their pros andcons. The alignment proposed by the NHAI is planned to avoidirrigation tanks, forest areas, Gingee Fort (protected monument byArchaeological Survey of India) and habitations. The proposed by-passalignment is not traversing through the Gingee Town as alleged by thepetitioner, but is traversing through some of the agricultural landsand vacant lands and is planned in such a way not to affect thesettlements in Gingee town.(d) The detailed project report consultants are the technicalexperts who have been appointed by the NHAI for the preparation ofdetailed project report based on the feasibility studies andengineering requirements, ground geometry as well as various options.The project alignment has been suggested after taking into accountall the vital factors such as cost to be incurred, convenience of thepublic, design standards of NHAI, the extent of lands to be acquired, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ etc. The above project has also been approved by the Public PrivateParticipation Appraisal Committee (PPPAC) and Cabinet Committee onInfrastructure (CCI). It is not right on the part of the petitionersto make such highly offensive statements against the detailed projectreport consultant who are people of expertise and high repute.(e) The alignment suggested by the District Collector has anacute bend and lies on the bank of the River Sankarabarani, which arenot acceptable as per the design standards of the National Highways.Further, the NHAI is not concerned only with the hardships caused tothe petitioners and since the project is a national importance andthere is an obligation on the part of the respondents to take intoconsideration the hardships caused to the public at large, than thatis caused to an individual.(f) The respondents have taken adequate care of theinfrastructure of the Gingee town and the welfare of its residents.Only after taking these factors into account that the respondentsprepared the detailed project report. The proposed alignment has beendesigned without disturbing the schools, residential buildings, watercourses and water resources. Adequate provisions have been made forthe drainage facilities to forestall any possible inundations in theevent of incessant rain/floods. The by-pass has been designed andalignment finalised to de-congest the traffic and ensure accidentfree, safe travel of the road users inside Gingee town as well as theproject highway. The economic viability of the project has beenevaluated by the Appraisal Committee of Cabinet, keeping in mind thebenefits of the residents of the area and development of theinfrastructure.(g) The letter dated 21.5.2011 is not an order passed by thefirst respondent, but it is his opinion as against the objectionsraised by the petitioners, where the first respondent has intended tospeed up the process of land acquisition and requested the secondrespondent to take necessary action for the payment of compensation.It was purely an internal communication among the respondents. Thepetitioner has misconceived this and has mislead the Court statingthat the first respondent has held that the enquiry was already done,whereas what is stated in the letter is that the enquiry is beingdone. The second respondent, by his notice dated 25.5.2011 along withthe opinion offered by the first respondent, has intimated thepetitioner along with all 33 objectors to appear for enquiry on2/7.6.2011. Hence, the enquiry conducted as under Section 3-C(1) isproper and meritorious. (h) The respondents have complied with all the procedurescontemplated under the National Highways Act with respect to thenotification, publication and enquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) There is no failure on the part of the respondents and allthe procedures contemplated in the National Highways Act, 1956 havebeen followed scrupulously and proper opportunity offered by thecompetent authority to the petitioners and the petitioners availed ofthemselves the opportunity and appeared before him on the date ofenquiry. However, the petitioners have filed the Writ Petitionsbefore this Court at a premature stage, even before passing of anyorder by the competent authority and suppressing the said fact, thepetitioners have filed these Writ Petitions to stall the proceedingsof the land acquisition and to cause hindrance to the implementationof the project in Gingee town.(j) The Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act requiresonly the brief description of the land to be acquired in the scheduleformat prescribed by the Central Government and the scope of theNotification is to notify intention of the Government to acquirecertain lands for the public purpose of building, maintenance,management and operation of National Highways. The format prescribedby the Central Government does not require the name of the owner ofthe land/interested persons to be published in publication underSection 3-A. However, the names of the owner of the land/interestedpersons shall only be published at the time of publication ofdeclaration under Section 3-D. Thus, the Notification under Section3-A(1) of the Act is valid by law and is in consonance with theNational Highways Act, 1956.(k) The second respondent has followed all the procedurescontemplated under Section 3-C(2) of the Act. The competent authorityhas notified the petitioners that the enquiry shall be held on2/7.6.2011 and the petitioners have in fact appeared in person and hewas given due opportunity of being heard.(l) According to the mandatory requirement of Section 3-A(3) ofthe National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority publishedthe substance of Notification in two local newspapers "Dinamani"(Tamil) and "The New Indian Express" (English) on 3.12.2010 which arestandard newspapers and having vast circulation throughout TamilNadu. (m) The petitioner is misleading the Court with the alignmentwhich was initially proposed in the year 2007 for the four laning ofTindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnagiri Section of NH-66 and theproposed Gingee by-pass to the said four lane starts at Km 63/090 andends at Km 71/260 with a total length of 10.76 Km. Subsequently, thiswas found to be non-viable and the four lane was restructured as twolane road due to lack of cost effectiveness and the new alignmentwhich starts from 65/548 and ends at Km 68/625 with length of 4.77 kmin NH-66 was proposed by the detailed project report consultantsafter conducting the feasibility studies afresh. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (n) The petitioners' contention is that the alignment optionswere not made by Government Engineers, but by the Consultants. Thepetitioner is ignorant of the fact that the Consultants are alsoappointed by NHAI for preparation of the detailed project report.(o) The Bridge across the Sankarabarani river was proposed inClause 1.4.3 of the report which was submitted for the by-pass whichwas proposed to be constructed on the proposed four lane. However,this four lane and the by-pass was found not to be viable and costeffective and hence, the proposal was dropped in December 2008 andwas restructured as 2-lane. The 2-lane was proposed with a reducedcost. However, the public convenience was a vital factor which wastaken into consideration and it is for this purpose the length of theby-pass was minimised to 4.77 km.(p) The Project Consultant has taken into consideration theenvironmental impact assessment study and the clearance has beenaccorded by the Ministry of Environmental and Forest. The contentionof the petitioner alleging air pollution owing to carbon monoxideemanated due to passing of heavy vehicles inside the Gingee town, hasalready been considered. After the formation of the by-pass, allexcept local traffic will be diverted through the by-pass. The localtraffic will be segregated and allowed to ply inside the Gingee town.Hence, possibility of congestion of traffic and emitting airpollution caused by heavy vehicles passing through the by-pass shallbe reduced to the maximum extent.(q) While forming the by-pass, adequate care will be taken forthe provisioning of safety arrangements. Markings, signages, zebracrossings and caution boards will be provided for the crossing ofroads at all the junction points and road crossings and allintersections as per the guidelines specifications of Indian RoadCongress (IRC) and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H).(r) The order has been passed by the second respondent afterconsidering the objections made by the petitioners and after givingadequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Further, thesecond respondent received the technical opinion from the firstrespondent and passed a detailed order where he discussed the severalobjections raised by the petitioners.(s) All the objections filed by the petitioners were consideredby the second respondent in detail and the petitioners were givenample opportunity of hearing. The tabular column contained in theorder of the second respondent contains only the extract of vitalobjections raised by the objectors.(t) The second respondent conducted the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act on 2.6.2011. After conducting such enquiry, thesecond respondent obtained the signature of the petitioners to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acknowledge that they have participated in the enquiry. Thepetitioners have now come out with a newly concocted story as if thesecond respondent instructed his subordinates to get his signature inthe written statement.(u) The order passed by the second respondent is the order ascontemplated under Section 3-C(2) of the National Highways Act, andit is not a suggestion as alleged by the petitioners. The secondrespondent has not accepted the plea of re-alignment given by thepetitioners. The second respondent along with technical experts,however, inspected various re-alignments suggested by the objectionpetitioners and found them not to be technically feasible and hence,were rejected.(v) The second respondent has clearly specified the reasons forthe non-feasibility of the alignments and the supporting evidence forthe reasons so specified are available in the office of the competentauthority which is open for the perusal of the petitioners.(w) The second respondent has considered the objections raisedon the factual aspects independently. However, he is not a technicalperson in order to decide the technical objections raised by thepetitioners. Therefore, the second respondent sought for the opinionof the Project Director, who is a technical expert in the matters ofNHAI.(x) The letter dated 21.5.2011 claimed to be the impugned order,is not in fact an order, but it is just an opinion of the ProjectDirector as against the objections of the petitioners and other landowners forwarded by the competent authority. In fact, the enquiryunder Section 3-C(2) of the Act was conducted by the secondrespondent on 2.6.2011 at his office after serving notices on all theobjection petitioners. The petitioners have also participated in theenquiry and recorded their statements and orders under Section 3-C(2)of the Act was passed by the second respondent on 20.7.2011. Hence,there is no cause of action for filing the writ petitions and thepetitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold, since theyare vexatious writ petitions.5.15. The second respondent has conducted enquiries on theobjections raised by the petitioners together with 33/30 objectionson 2/7.6.2011. After considering the objections filed by thepetitioners and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to theobjectors, detailed orders were passed as required under Section 3-C(2) of the Act in Na.Ka.A/SDRO/Land acquisition/NationalHighway/958/2010-3 on 20.7.2011. The petitioners have approached theCourt by suppressing the fact. The petitioners have filed this WritPetition seeking remedy of this Court with an ulterior intention tostall the proceedings of the land acquisition by the competentauthority. Further, the work has been awarded after observing all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ formalities and entering into an agreement under the provisions ofthe National Highways Act, and the National Highways Authority ofIndia Act. Hence, the allegation that the work has been commenced atthe instigation of the Contractor is not sustainable. The secondrespondent has followed all the principles and procedurescontemplated under Sections 3-A and 3-C of the National Highways Act.5.16. The Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act waspublished in the Gazette of India No.2282 (Extraordinary) as perS.O.No.2701(E), dated 2.11.2010 and the substance of the Notificationwas published in two local newspapers, i.e. Dinamani and the NewIndian Express, dated 3.12.2010 as required under Section 3-A(3) ofthe Act. The petitioner's contention that no Gazette publication wasmade except publication in Tamil newspaper is false and motivated.The petitioners have levelled this allegation with a view to savetheir own lands from the land acquisition for the project.5.17. The by-pass to Gingee Town is a part of the project of twolane with paved shoulders configuration of the stretch fromTindivanam to Krishnagiri of NH-66 from Km.38/150 to Km.214/000 witha total length of 182.182 km., of which, the Gingee by-pass is only4.77 km. length. Owing to pending of writ petitions, further workcould not proceed and land acquisition process in respect of Gingeeby-pass came to stand-still. This project of great nationalimportance could not progress due to pending of the writ petitions inthe Court and the financial loss cannot be recouped owing tocontractual claims.5.18. The petitioners' main intention to file these WritPetitions before this Court is to drag on the proceedings and also todelay implementation of the project, for which there is no prima-facie case in the writ petitions. The main challenge of thepetitioners is only against the opinion of the first respondentfurnished to the second respondent for passing orders under Section3-C(2) of the Act. Since no such orders have been passed by theProject Director, the writ petitions are infructuous and are liableto be dismissed at the threshold. 5.19. The competent authority, SDRO, Villupuram passed detailedorders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act in Na.Ka.A/SDRO/Landacquisition/National Highway/958/2010-3 on 20.7.2011 afterconsidering the objections filed by the petitioners along with thetechnical opinion of the Project Director and after giving adequateopportunity of hearing to the objectors. Therefore, nothing survivesin the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to bedismissed in limine. It is therefore prayed that this Court maydismiss the writ petitions with costs. 6. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit, statingas follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.1. The writ petitions are premature and not maintainable inlaw and on facts. The acquisition proceedings are only at enquirystage. This respondent has not yet passed any final orders on theobjections filed by the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions areliable to be dismissed in limine.6.2. The detailed project report is prepared based on thefeasibility studies and engineering requirements, ground geometry aswell as various options. The detailed project report consultant isthe technical team appointed by the NHAI for studying all the aboveaspects and preparation of the detailed project report. Theconsultant is paid only a fee for the services rendered. Thepetitioners' observation that the DPR consultants are only interestedin making profit, is baseless, derogatory and highly objectionable.The DPR consultant studies various aspects relating to the project,viz., the topography, number of vehicles plying on the roadpresently, the load imposed on the road, etc., and estimates thevehicle population which would be using the road in the next 20 yearsbased on the study. He offers various options for improvement of theroad. The NHAI which comprises of highly qualified engineers in thefield, studies the alignments proposed by the Consultant andfinalises the alignment best studied for the project. On the basis ofthe alignment finalised by the NHAI, the requirement of land isassessed and proposed to be acquired. The DPR consultant has nothingto do with the profitability or otherwise of the project. He ismerely a technical consultant engaged by the NHAI for studying thetechnical aspects of the project and design the road. While so, thepetitioners have levelled baseless allegations against the DPRconsultant.6.3. A section of the public in Gingee town have opposed theproposed alignment of the by-pass on the following grounds:(a) A number of public utilities viz., BSNL Office, regulatedmarket committee, government hospital, police station, taluk officeand sub-Registrar Office are located near the place where the by-passis now proposed to commence.(b) Vehicles transporting paddy and other agricultural produceto the regulated market will be parked on the highway from theregulated market up to the traveller's bungalow.(c) A large number of vehicles will be plying in the road forMelmalaiyanur Temple on Amavasyai and Thiruvannamalai Temple onPournami days causing traffic jams.(d) Since the proposed by-pass will be in close proximity to thetown, there will be no room for expansion of the town. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.4. Representatives of the public and prominent politicianshave met and made representations to the District Collector,Villupuram. The District Collector visited Gingee town on 30.1.2010with the Project Director, NHAI and other officials and inspected thealignment proposed by the NHAI and the alternative alignmentsuggested by the objection petitioners and sent a report to theSecretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9, suggesting that as an alternative, the by-pass can be laid originating from Nangilikondan Village, pass throughPerumbugai, Melkalavoy, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram villages andjoin the NH skirting the Gingee Fort, so that the alternativealignment will not touch Gingee town. He had requested the Secretaryto Government to address the NHAI for passing appropriate orders. Thealternative alignment suggested by the District Collector was alsosuggested by Thiru.M.Krishnaswamy, Member of Parliament to theMinister of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. The Minister ofRoad Transport and Highways, New Delhi, vide his letterNHAI/TECH/TN/VIP/2010 dated 28.7.2010 had rejected the abovesuggestion on the ground that:(i) the alternative alignment is not only longer and costlier,but will also affect more land, structures and wells.(ii) it requires major bridge across Sankaraparani river for308m.(iii) the project appraisal committee has asked to scale downthe cost of the project, whereas the increase in length willautomatically escalate the project cost.6.5. The District Collector, Villupuram in his letter dated31.8.2010 had addressed the Secretary to Government, Highways andMinor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and requested toaddress NHAI to re-consider their decision regarding Gingee by-pass,since the by-pass proposed by the NHAI is in close proximity of thetown and it will not serve the purpose of avoiding congestion. Againin his letter Do.A/SDRO/LA/NH66/45/2010-5, dated 12.1.2011, addressedto the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9, District Collector, Villupuram suggested aslight modification to the alignment proposed by NHAI according tothe representation received from the President, Town Panchayat,Gingee, wherein it was suggested that the proposed by-pass may belaid along the Chetpet road prior to Sankarabarani river bridge andrequested to address the NHAI to consider the feasibility of thesuggestion. The deviation suggested by the President, Town Panchayat,and recommended by the District Collector, was inspected by the ChiefGeneral Manager, NHAI, Chennai and the technical opinion of the DPRConsultant who had designed the by-pass also was called for by theNHAI. The DPR consultant had studied in detail the alignment assuggested by the local panchayat and recommended by the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Collector, Villupuram and reported that this alignment cannot fulfilthe engineering requirements of NHAI standards and as such, it is notfeasible to change the alignment as recommended by the DistrictCollector. The Project Director, NHAI, Villupuram in his letterNHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-'K'Giri/LA/2011/636, dated 24.5.2011, addressed tothe District Collector, has stated that the change in alignment isnot feasible. The Project Director, NHAI, has also stated that theChetpet road indicated in Option IV in the affidavit is running alongthe river bank and the suggested alignment on existing road withacute bend is not feasible to provide proper curve and bridge etc.,as per design standards of NHAI. Since the river is very nearer toroad, curve will come inside the river which is technically notfeasible. Hence, the change in alignment to the by-pass is notfeasible.6.6. The petitioners sent their objection petitions, dated20.12.2010 to the second respondent. The second respondent had sent acopy of the objection petitions of the petitioners along with theobjection petitions of 22 other petitioners to the first respondentwho happens to be the requisitioning authority for acquisition oflands, for offering his technical opinion on the objections raised bythe petitioners. The technical opinion offered by the firstrespondent was served on the objection petitioners only in accordancewith the principles of natural justice and they were requested toattend the hearing on 7.6.2011. The procedure followed by the secondrespondent is in accordance with law.6.7. The petitioners are trying to mislead this Court bycontending that the first respondent is the Superior Officer to thesecond respondent and that he had directed the second respondent notto deviate from the by-pass alignment. The petitioners know prettywell that the second respondent is the competent authority under theNational Highways Act and that the competent authority is anindependent officer. The second respondent is the Land AcquisitionOfficer belonging to the State Government and the first respondenthails from NHAI which is a Government of India undertaking. The firstrespondent is neither superior nor subordinate to the competentauthority. The letter dated 21.5.2011 of the first respondent is onlyhis technical opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners andnot an order as misrepresented by the petitioners. The firstrespondent is not competent to pass any orders on the objectionsfiled by the land owners. As the petitioners are entitled to objectto the land acquisition, the Project Director who is therequisitioning body in this case, is also entitled to file his replyon the objections. To satisfy the principles of natural justice, thesecond respondent has communicated the copies of the objectionpetitions to the requisitioning authority and his replies on theobjections to the petitioners. The petitioners are again trying tomislead this Court by contending that the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act was already conducted by the second respondent. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fact, the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act was conducted bythe second respondent on 7.6.2011 at his office after serving noticeson all the objection petitioners. Orders under Section 3-C(2) of theAct have not yet been passed. As such, the petitioners have notexhausted the remedy available to them from the administration.6.8. The petitioners' contentions that the second respondent hasrefused to enquire the petitioners and shouted at them, are allunadulterated lies. The petitioners have committed perjury by lyingin their sworn affidavits. The second respondent is a senior publicservant. He has treated the petitioners with utmost courtesy andheard their objections with an open mind. The petitioners arepersistently trying to mislead this Court by contending that thefirst respondent has decided on the objections in his letter dated21.5.2011, whereas it is only a reply filed by the Project Directoron the objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners knowpretty well about the proceedings, but misrepresent the facts with anintention to gain sympathy of this Court. The substance of thenotification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act was published in localnewspapers on 3.12.2010. The Notification contains the details of thelands proposed to be acquired by the Government, and there is nothingvague in the Notification as contended by the petitioners.6.9. The contentions raised in the grounds are untenable,unsustainable and contrary to law as per the well settled judicialpronouncements and hence denied.6.10. The substance of the Notification under Section 3-A(1)published in the local newspapers "Dinamani" and "The New IndianExpress" on 3.12.2010, the technical opinion furnished by the firstrespondent, vide his letter dated 21.5.2011 and the enquiry noticedated 25.5.2011, sent by the second respondent are all properproceedings of the land acquisition in accordance with the provisionsof the National Highways Act, 1956. There is nothing illegal,irregular or excessiveness in the proceedings as contended by thepetitioners.6.11. The Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A isonly a notification issued by the Government of India of theirintention to acquire private properties for the public purpose ofbuilding, management or operation of a National Highway. Section 3-A(2) of the Act requires that the Notification shall give a briefdescription of land to be acquired. The Notification so issued is asper the provisions of the Act. The said Notification is proper andvalid.6.12. The alignment of Gingee by-pass was decided by thecompetent experts in the field of road formation and approved by theNHAI, which is the apex body for building, maintenance and operationof the National Highways. After studying various options and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ objections put forth by the objection petitioners, to avoidirrigation tanks, forest areas, Gingee Fort (protected monument byASI) habitations, etc., the present alignment was finalised andapproved. The proposed by-pass does not at all enter Gingee Town. Nohabitations in Gingee Town are affected by the present alignment.6.13. The detailed project report is prepared based onfeasibility studies and engineering requirements, ground geometry aswell as various options. The DPR consultant is an expert in roadformation. They have nothing to do with the profitability orotherwise of the project. He is paid only his fees for the technicalservices rendered by him. The allegations levelled by the petitionersagainst the DPR consultant are malicious and baseless. The secondrespondent is only the land acquisition officer and not a persontechnically qualified to design and execute a road project.6.14. The suggestion made by the District Collector for re-alignment of the proposed Gingee by-pass was referred to the firstrespondent. The suggestion for deviation in the alignment assuggested by the local panchayat and recommended by the DistrictCollector was studied in detail. It was found that this alignmentcannot fulfil the engineering requirements of NHAI standards and assuch, it is not feasible to change the alignment as recommended bythe District Collector. 6.15. The acquisition is for a public purpose with a view todevelop the infrastructure and improve the economy of the region. Theproject is for the welfare of the public at large to cope with theday-by-day increase of vehicle population, ease the trafficcongestion within Gingee town, industrial advancement and increase oftourist traffic. It is imperative that acquisition of private landsfor any developmental activity is inevitable. No schools orhabitations are involved in the proposed land acquisition. As regardsthe drainage requirements, suitable provisions will be made in theproject for draining the rain water. The petitioner is presenting ahorrendous picture by contending that the entire Gingee Town will besubmerged in flood waters, which is utterly false.6.16. The letter sent by the first respondent dated 21.5.2011 isonly his reply on the objection petitions. It is not an order on theobjections as contended by the petitioners. The second respondentalone is the competent authority to hold enquiry on the objectionsand pass an order under Section 3-C(2) of the Act. The objectionpetitioners including the petitioners herein were enquired by thesecond respondent on 7.6.2011 in accordance with law. The secondrespondent has so far not passed any orders under Section 3-C(2). Thepetitioners should have awaited the second respondent's order. On theother hand, they have rushed to the Court and filed these vexatiouslitigations only with an intention to stall the project. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.17. The mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 3 ofthe National Highways Act, has been scrupulously followed. There isno violation of any of the provisions which may vitiate thenotification. In the notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act isonly the brief particulars of lands to be acquired given in theSchedule as required by law. It is only a preliminary notificationnotifying the intention of the Government to acquire certain landsfor the public purpose of building, management or operation of aNational Highway. The land owners' name will not be indicated at thisstage and there is no failure which may vitiate the proceedings. Thesecond respondent has properly followed the procedure contemplatedunder Section 3-C(2) of the Act and conducted enquiry of theobjection petitioners on 7.6.2011. There is no failure on the part ofthe second respondent. 6.18. According to Section 3-A(3) of the Act, the competentauthority shall cause the substance of the notification to bepublished in two local newspapers, one of which will be in thevernacular language. The second respondent published substance ofSection 3-A(1) Notification in local newspapers "Dinamani" (Tamil)and "The New Indian Express" (English) on 3.12.2010. It is a wellknown fact that both the papers are standard newspapers circulatingthroughout Tamil Nadu. The petitioners are persistently trying tomislead this Court by creating a picture as if the first respondenthas something to do with the land acquisition. In fact, he has norole in the land acquisition. It is the competent authority whoacquires the lands. Various options are explored before finalising analignment. One of the options was the by-pass to the total length of10.76 kms. This alignment was discarded as not viable. The NHAI haschosen the alignment which starts from Km.65/548 and ends atKm.68/625 of NH66. The total length of the by-pass is 4.77 km. Gingeetown is surrounded by two ancient and historic forts under themaintenance of the ASI, Forest lands, Sankarabarani river and variousirrigation and other water bodies. After studying various options forthe by-pass, considering the forest lands, irrigation tanks,structures getting affected, Gingee Fort etc., this alignment wasapproved. There is no prejudice to the petitioners as alleged. Theowners of the private property under acquisition will be paidappropriate compensation.6.19. The contention of the petitioners that their objectionswere simply rejected is false and misleading. The second respondenthas so far not passed any orders under Section 3-C(2) on theobjections. The deviation in alignment suggested by the localPanchayat and recommended by the District Collector, dated 31.8.2010was studied by technical experts. The Chetpet road through which thedeviation is suggested, runs along the Sankarabarani river bank. Onthe other side of the road, is hillock. There is no room forexpanding the road to the width of 60 metres. The suggested alignmenton existing road will result in an acute bend. The proposed bridge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ across the river cannot be provided with proper gradient because ofthe acute turn, as per the design standards of NHAI. It was furtherobserved that since the river is very near to the road, the curvewill come inside the river, which is technically not feasible. Hence,the change of alignment as recommended by the District Collector wasnot accepted.6.20. Taking into account the environmental impact, theassessment study and after proper analysis, the Ministry of Forestand Environment, has given clearance for the project. The contentionof the petitioners that the loss to property and human life byinhaling carbon monoxide emanated from the passage of the heavyvehicles inside the Gingee Town, is exaggerated by the petitionersbeyond truth. In fact, after formation of the by-pass, there will beno traffic of heavy vehicles within Gingee Town. The construction ofthe by-pass is a facility provided for road users and aimed to ensureaccident free, time saving, safe travel. All the junction pints androad crossings will be taken care of by providing properintersections, caution boards, marking, signals, etc., to avoidaccidents and to alert road users. Appropriate safety arrangements asper IRC and MORT & H guidelines will be made in this stretch. Noorders have so far been passed by the second respondent. Thepetitioners are challenging an imaginary order and there is no causeof action at all for these vexatious writ petitions.6.21. The first respondent offered his technical opinion thatthe alignment suggested by the petitioners is not technicallyfeasible for NHAI project and acquisition of lands of the petitionerswhich all in the alignment chosen by the DPR consultant isinevitable. Considering all these aspects, the second respondentpassed orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act on 20.7.2011 rejectingthe petitions filed by the petitioners.6.22. The second respondent has conducted enquiry of theobjection petitioners on 2.6.2011/7.6.2011 and recorded thestatements from the persons who attended the enquiry on that date.The petitioners were also heard. Even then, the petitioners havestated that the second respondent has not conducted enquiry, which isa falsehood. The second respondent in his order, stated only theobjections given by the petitioners in their petition in detail andafter considering the technical opinion furnished by the firstrespondent, based on the reports of the technical experts, the secondrespondent rejected the objections filed by the petitioners as thechange in alignment of the by-pass is not technically feasible.6.23. The second respondent personally conducted the enquiry on2.6.2011 and the petitioners had also presented the objectionpetition before the second respondent on 2.6.2011 and the petitionersherein had also presented the objection petition before the secondrespondent on 2.6.2011 and it was received by the second respondent.The order under Section 3-C(2) passed by the second respondent is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ speaking order, discussing both the objections raised by thepetitioners and the reply received from the first respondent, as towhy it is not possible to deviate the present by-pass alignment andafter studying all the merits and demerits of the case, the order waspassed appropriately by the second respondent, rejecting theobjection petitions filed by the petitioners. The second respondenthas not accepted the petitioners' plea of re-alignment. Thepetitioners are mis-representing the order passed by the secondrespondent. The Chetpet road is running along the river bank andsuggested alignment on existing road with acute bend, is nottechnically feasible to provide proper curve and bridge, etc., as perdesign standards of NHAI. These points were clearly explained in theorders passed by the second respondent. The orders were passed by thesecond respondent with utmost care and application of mind.6.24. The land acquisition is only in the initial stage. Work onthe project can be commenced only after finalisation of the landacquisition process. Any injunction passed by this Court willadversely affect the project, which has been taken up forimplementation in the larger interest of the general public.6.25. The Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act waspublished in the Gazette of India No.2282 (Extraordinary) S.O.No.2701(E), dated 2.11.2010 and the substance of the Notification waspublished in two local newspapers "Dinamani" (Tamil) and "The NewIndian Express" (English), dated 3.12.2010. Hence, the contention ofthe petitioners that no publication was made except publication inTamil newspaper, is false. The petitioners are not entitled to therelief prayed for by them. The writ petitions filed by them are notmaintainable and liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 7. Mr.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, in hisforemost submission contended that there is no proper description ofthe extent of lands out of larger extent of proposed lands to beacquired by giving the names of the owners, bondaries andmeasurements. Therefore, the land owners are not in a position toknow as to which are the exact portion of the lands, which are soughtto be acquired. There is vagueness and lack of material particularsin the Notification itself, and therefore, the acquisitionproceedings are vitiated in law. In support of his contentions,learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of theSupreme Court reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477 (Competent Authority Vs.Barangore Jute Factory).8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended thatthe competent authority failed to take note of the fact that a dutyis cast upon the acquiring authority in the acquisition proceedingsto follow the procedures, but he has delegated his power to privateconsultancy service to decide the alignment, which agency has no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ knowledge about the hardship of the general public whose lands aresought to be acquired. Therefore, the District Collector, who is theauthority who knows the hardship, has made a survey and sent theproposal and that proposal has to be taken note of. On the contrary,the respondents acted against the proposal and proceeded to acquirethe lands.9. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended thatthe second respondent ought to have considered the objections raisedby the petitioners independently, but he simply rejected the samebased on the order passed by the first respondent, and therefore,there is total non-application of mind on the part of theauthorities. 10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for thepetitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported inAIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The ChiefElection Commissioner, New Delhi and others), wherein, the Apex Courtheld as follows:"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when astatutory functionary makes an order based on certaingrounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons somentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in theshape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad inthe beginning may, by the time it comes to court on accountof a challenge, get validated by additional grounds laterbrought out. We may here draw attention to the observationsof Bose,J in Gorhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p.18):"Public orders publicy made, in exercise of astatutory authority cannot be construed in the lightof explanations subsequently given by the officermaking the order of what he meant, or of what was inhis mind, or what he intended to do. Public ordersmade by public authorities are meant to have publiceffect and are intended to affect the acting andconduct of those to whom they are addressed and mustbe construed objectively with reference to thelanguage used in the order itself."11. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the firstrespondent-NHAI, in his submissions, contended that the NationalHighways Authority of India (for short, 'NHAI') has taken up theproject of improving NH66 in the stretch between Tindivanam andKrishnagiri for rehabilitation and upgrading of two-lane, with pavedshoulders configuration of stretch with by-passes for built-up areaof the towns and requested the competent authority for acquisition ofthe private lands for formation of by-pass for larger publicinterest, after taking into account the technical feasibility report https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the alignment of the proposed project. After detailed projectstudy, the consultancy has been suggested, taking into account thevital factors such as cost to be incurred, convenience of the public,design standards of NHAI, the extent of lands to be acquired, etc.,and the same have been approved by the Public Private ParticipationAppraisal Committee (PPPAC) and the Cabinet Committee onInfrastructure (CCI), and therefore, it is not right on the part ofthe petitioners to make such a statement against the detailed projectreport consultants who are people of expertise and high repute.12. Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent furthersubmitted that the objections made by the petitioners, have been dulyconsidered, after the roving enquiry, after giving them anopportunity of hearing and the enquiry was conducted under Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannotassail the Notification on the ground that there is no properdescription of the lands. 13. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel forthe first respondent relied on the following decisions:(a) 1996 (8) SCC 18 (Sam Hiring Co. Vs. A.R.Bhujbal):"6.The Land Acquisition Officer is not a judicialauthority or a quasi-judicial authority. He exercised the powerunder Section 5-A, as an administrative authority. But the Actrequires that he should consider the objections and, if asked,to give an opportunity of hearing. In this case, opportunity ofhearing was given and the objections raised were considered.The principle of natural justice has been complied with. He wasnot required to elaborately deal with each of the objectionsand submit the report. Considered from this perspective, we donot think that there is any error of law warrantinginterference."(b) 1997 (1) SCC 134 (Ramniklal N.Bhutta Vs. State ofMaharashtra):"10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessaryto make a few observations relevant to land acquisitionproceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitiousprogramme of all-round economic advancement to make our economycompetitive in the world market. We are anxious to attractforeign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose tocompete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace ofprogress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred toas "Asian tigers", e.g. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Itis, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructurenecessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefullylacking in our country. The means of transportation, power andcommunications are in dire need of substantial improvement, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ expansion and modernisation. These things very often call foracquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is,however, natural that in most of these cases, the personsaffected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. Thesechallenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filedin High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked forand in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are alsomade. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a timehas come where the courts should keep the larger publicinterest in mind while exercising their power of grantingstay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary.It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests ofjustice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. Andin the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, theinterests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They arevery often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting ofinjunction or other similar orders, more particularly of aninterlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The Courtshave to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the privateinterest while exercising the power under Article 226--indeedany of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to theHigh Court to direct, in case it finds finally that theacquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with somelegal requirement that the persons interested shall also beentitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as alump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensationpayable. There are many ways of affording appropriate reliefand redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings isnot the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matterof balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it isneither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust thatthese considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courtswhile dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings."(c) 2008 (7) SCC 53 (Girias Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. State ofKarnataka):"25. Concededly, Section 28(3) of the Act gives a right ofpersonal hearing to the owner of the land or any otherinterested person and the judgments cited by the learnedcounsel therefore eminently support the appellants' case. Thequestion as to whether an effective personal hearing was givenor not, however, is a question of fact and we notice from aperusal of the record that such hearing was indeed given andthat the appellant had exercised his rights thereunder and itwas only after the procedure under Section 28(3) had beenfollowed, that the final notification had been issued. We findthat the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of theHigh Court have given categorical findings against theappellant on this score and we have no reason to differ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefrom. We have nevertheless examined the record to reassureourselves as to the correctness of the High Court's decision.""27. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that therequest for a personal hearing was conditional, in that if aclarification or additional documents were required, time forthat purpose be given. It is also significant that theobjections filed by the appellants form (almost exclusively)the basis for the present writ petition inasmuch as the factthat there was no need for the change of the alignment of thetrumpet interchange and the access road or that alternativeland was available for that purpose, had been spelt outtherein. The Collector in dealing with the objections hadobserved that several objections/documents had been filed bythe appellants but were liable to rejection as the acquisitionwas necessary for Bangalore Airport. We are also not unmindfulof the fact that though the rights of an individual whoseproperty is sought to be acquired must be scrupulouslyrespected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public atlarge is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasonsmust exist for doing so. This is the ratio of the judgment ofthis Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra ( 1997(1) SCC 134 ), wherein it has been held as under: (SCC p.140,para 10)"10. Whatever may have been the practices in thepast, a time has come where the courts should keep thelarger public interest in mind while exercising theirpower of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only infurtherance of interests of justice and not merely on themaking out of a legal point. And in the matter of landacquisition for public purposes, the interests of justiceand the public interest coalesce. They are very often oneand the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunctionor other similar orders, more particularly of aninterlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. TheCourts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis theprivate interest while exercising the power under Article226--indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may evenbe open to the High Court to direct, in case it findsfinally that the acquisition was vitiated on account ofnon-compliance with some legal requirement that thepersons interested shall also be entitled to a particularamount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum orcalculated at a certain percentage of compensationpayable. There are many ways of affording appropriaterelief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisitionproceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it isultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests.Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ We hope and trust that these considerations will be dulyborne in mind by the courts while dealing with challengesto acquisition proceedings." (d) JT 2011 (8) SC 160 = 2011 (7) SCALE 654 (Union of IndiaVs. Dr.Kushala Shetty and others):"19. In this case, notification dated 10.8.2005, whichwas published in the official Gazette of the same date and ofwhich substance was published in two local newspapers,contained full description of the land proposed to beacquired for widening three National Highways. The names ofthe villages in which the land proposed to be acquired wassituated, the survey numbers including sub-survey numbers,the nature, type and area of the land were also given in theschedule appended to the notification. Not only this, it wasclearly mentioned that land plans and other details of theland are available in the office of the Competent Authority.This is the reason why none of the land owners (including therespondents) made any grievance that the notification issuedunder Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act was vague or that due tolack of particulars/details, they were prevented fromeffectively exercising their right to file objections interms of Section 3C(1). Of course, a grievance of this scorewas made in the objections dated 16.10.2006 filed by some ofthe land owners of Padavu Village, but that was clearly anafterthought and, in any case, the same did not requireconsideration because of non-adherence to the time schedulespecified in Section 3C(1) of the 1956 Act.20. The only reason assigned by the Division Bench ofthe High Court for upsetting the well considered order passedby the learned single Judge negating the respondents'challenge to the acquisition was that declaration underSection 3D(1) was published even before communication of thedecision taken by the Competent Authority in terms of Section3C(2). The process of reasoning adopted by the Division Benchfor recording its conclusion appears to have been influencedby an assumption that the objections filed by the land ownershad not been decided till the issue of declaration underSection 3D(1). However, the fact of the matter is that thecompetent Authority had, after giving opportunity of personalhearing to the objectors, passed order dated 11.10.2005 andrejected the objections. Though, that order was not craftedlike a judicial order which is passed by a legally trainedmind, the rejection of the representations made by therespondents cannot be faulted only on that ground. TheCompetent Authority did advert to the substance ofobjections, the details of which have been incorporated inAnnexure P-3 filed before this Court. The concerned officerrejected the same by observing that the land proposed for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquisition is necessary for widening the existing NationalHighways into four lanes. If the consideration made by theCompetent Authority is judged in the backdrop of the factthat a Special Purpose Vehicle was incorporated with the nameNew Mangalore Port Road Company Limited for implementation ofthe project known as New Mangalore Port Road ConnectivityProject from Surathkal to Nantoor and B.C.Road to Padil alongwith bypass from Nantoor to Padil, it is not possible tocastigate the proved reasons recorded by the CompetentAuthority for rejecting the objections.""24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is aprofessionally managed statutory body having expertise in thefield of development and maintenance of National Highways.The projects involving construction of new highways andwidening and development of the existing highways, which arevital for development of infrastructure in the country, areentrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprise ofpersons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field ofhighway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares andimplements projects relating to development and maintenanceof National Highways after thorough study by experts indifferent fields. Detailed project reports are preparedkeeping in view the relative factors including intensity ofheavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. TheCourts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viabilityand feasibility of the particular project and whether theparticular alignment would subserve the larger publicinterest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review isvery limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of landand, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if itis found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law ortainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither anyviolation of mandate of the 1956 Act had been established northe charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, theorder under challenge cannot be sustained."(e) 2007 (6) MLJ 935 (Krishnaveni Vs. U.O.I) (Madras HighCourt):"23. The petitioners sought to challenge the veracityand correctness of the detailed finalized plan of NationalHighways Authority of India, in my view, the said submissionis devoid of merits. The findings of expert bodies intechnical and scientific matters would not ordinarily beinterfered with by this Court in exercise of their powerunder Article 226 of the Constitution, followed Akhil BharatGoseva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 4 SCC 162wherein in para-59, it was held thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "59. The appellant sought to challenge the veracity andcorrectness of the figures given in the report of theCentral Government as well as in the quinquennialcensus. In our view, this submission is devoid of merit.It is now well settled by various decisions of thisCourt that the findings of expert bodies in technicaland scientific matters would not ordinarily beinterfered with by the courts in exercise of their powerunder Article 226 of the Constitution or by this Courtunder Article 136 or 32 of the Constitution...." (f) 2006 (5) CTC 634 (The General Manager (Tech.) and ProjectDirector Vs. Sridevi (Mrs.) (Division Bench of Madras HighCourt): "8. The notification specifically mentions that theplants and the other details of the lands covered under thenotification would be available and could be inspected by theinterested persons in the office of the competent authority.Thus, the aggrieved land-owners had an opportunity to inspectthe land plans and the other details and it is notpermissible for them to make any grievance about thedescription of the land. In fact, the Supreme Court decision,cited supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioners, supports the case of the respondents rather thepetitioners."(g) W.P.No.18790 of 2010, order dated 17.8.2010 (DivisionBench of Madras High Court) (G.Loganathan Vs. The CompetentAuthority and Special District Revenue Official (LA),National Highways, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District andothers) :"4. Taking into consideration this fact and also havingregard to the fact that the National Highways Authority ofIndia has the expertise to see as to which alignment isfeasible and would best suit the requirements. This Court,exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution, cannot go into all these questions. The writpetition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010 areclosed."(h) W.P.No.1919 of 2009, order dated 29.7.2009 (Madras HighCourt)(T.Vasantha Vs. The Government of India, represented bythe Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport andNational Highways, New Delhi and others): "24. Though the above said judgment is rendered underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the ratio laid down there isapplicable to the facts of these cases, i.e., where theproperty under acquisition has been vested in the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ department, the High Court should not interfere with theacquisition and quash either Section 4-1 Notification orSection 6 Declaration. As far as the case in hand isconcerned, here also, the award has been passed andpossession has been taken. Under such circumstances, as perthe above said judgment, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, at this stage, this Court cannot eveninterfere with the acquisition proceedings."(i) 2005 (13) SCC 477 (Competent Authority Vs. Barangore JuteFactory):"7. .... The impugned notification is by the CentralGovernment. NHAI is established under a Central Act. Thecompetent authority under Section 3 of the Act is appointedby the Central Government. Therefore, this State Governmentplan of 1996 (the impugned notification is of 1998) is of noassistance. The impugned judgment of the High Courtemphasises the need for a plan. It is clear from the judgmentof the High Court that no plan was produced before it. Theabsence of any reference to plan in the impugned notificationand in fact non-availability of any plan linked to thenotification, fortifies the argument that the description ofthe land under acquisition in the impugned notification failsto meet the legal requirement of a brief description of theland which renders the notification invalid.8. The absence of a plan also renders the right to fileobjections under Section 3-C(1), nugatory. In the absence ofa plan, it is impossible to ascertain or know which part ofthe acquired land was to be used and in what manner. Withoutthis knowledge no objections regarding use of land could befiled. Since the objection regarding use of the land had beengiven up by the writ petitioners, we need not go any furtherin this aspect. We would, however, like to add that unlikeSection 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers ageneral right to object to acquisition of land under Section4 of the said Act, Section 3-C(1) of the National HighwaysAct gives a very limited right to object. The objection canbe only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposesother than those under Section 3-A(1). The Act confers noright to object to acquisition as such. This answers theargument advanced by the learned counsel for NHAI thatfailure to file objections disentitles the writ petitionersto object to the acquisition. The Act confers no generalright to object, therefore, failure to object becomesirrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment ofthis Court in Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban (1999 (7) SCC44). In our view, this judment has no application in thefacts of the present case where the right to object is a verylimited right. The case cited is a case under the Land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to objectto acquisition of land under Section 5-A. Failure to exercisethat right could be said to be acquiescence. The NationalHighways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there isno right to object to acquisition of land except on thequestion of its user. Therefore, the present objection has tobe decided independently of the right to file objections.Dehors the right to file objection, the validity of thenotification has to be considered. Failure to file objectionto the notification under Section 3-C, therefore, cannot non-suit the writ petitioners in this case." 14. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for thecompetent authority, the second respondent herein, in hersubmissions, strenuously contended that for a public project, basedon a detailed project report, the competent authority made theNotification for acquisition of the lands on the basis of thealignment furnished by the NHAI, after the requirement of the landsis assessed and proposed to be acquired, with complete description ofthe lands, and there is no defect in the impugned Notification madeunder Section 3-A of the National Highways Act. The second respondentbeing an officer belonging to the State Government, independentlyassessed the lands sought to be acquired and proceeded by a cleardescription of the extent of the proposed lands sought to beacquired, with boundaries, measurements and the names of the landowners. She further submitted that the objection of the petitioners,was considered by the competent authority independently with clearapplication of mind, taking into consideration the public purpose ofthe project and the requirement of the first respondent for NationalHighways and accordingly, the second respondent decided theobjections by taking into account each and every grievance of thepetitioners. There is no infirmity in the action as well as theproceedings of the competent authority. 15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties andperused the records and given thoughtful consideration to theirsubmissions.16. The National Highways Authority of India (for short,'NHAI'), a body under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,Union of India, has taken the project of improving NH66 in betweenthe stretch from Tindivanam to Krishnagiri, for which, ProjectImplementation Unit having a Unit at Villupuram, has been entrustedwith the task of implementing the above project, which aims to reducecongestion and ensure free flow of traffic at Gingee Town and by-passroad has been proposed and the Special District Revenue Officer,Villupuram, the second respondent herein has been appointed ascompetent authority for acquisition of the private lands required forformation of by-pass. The proposed four-lane of Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnagiri Section from Km.38/150 to Km.214/000 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NH66 and the proposed Gingee by-pass was to start at Km.63/090 andend at Km.71/260 with total length of 10.76 kms. Subsequently, due tofinancial constraints, the proposed four lane was instructed to berestructured as two lane and the new alignments were proposed by thedetailed project report consultants for Gingee by-pass, starting atKm.65.548 at Sakkarapuram and ending at Km.68.625, with a length of4.77 kms traversing through Sakkarapuram, Sirukadambur andKrishnapuram Villages. The Special District Revenue Officer has beenauthorised to act as competent authority to acquire the requiredlands under the provisions of the National Highways Act, by virtue ofthe powers conferred under the said Act and he proceeded to acquirethe lands by issuing the Notification under Section 3-A of the Act.The Project Director, NHAI, who is the requisitioning body, has tomonitor the process of land acquisition by speeding up the projectwork.17. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued theNotification on 2.11.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of1956) (for short, 'the Act'), and the Central Government, afterbeing satisfied that for the public purpose, the land, the briefdescription of which was given in the Schedule therein, is requiredfor building (widening/four laning, etc.,), maintenance, managementand operation of National Highway No.66 on the stretch of land fromKM.40.000 to KM.85.600 (Tindivanam-Krishnagiri Section) in DistrictVillupuram in the State of Tamil Nadu, declared its intention toacquire such land and also notified that the persons interested inthe said land, may, within 21 days from the date of publication ofthe Notification in the Official Gazette, object to the use of suchland for the aforesaid purpose under sub-section (1) of Section 3-Cof the Act. It is further notified that every such objection shall bemade to the competent authority, namely the Special District RevenueOfficer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Villupuram, in writingand shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authorityshall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either inperson or by a legal practitioner and may, after hearing all suchobjections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as thecompetent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow ordisallow the objections and that any order made by the competentauthority under sub-section (2) of Section 3-C of the Act, shall befinal. The land plans and other details of land covered under thesaid Notification are available and can be inspected by theinterested person at the office of the competent authority. In theSchedule to the said Notification, the brief description of the landsin question sought to be acquired, with or without structure, fallingwithin the stretch of land from Km.40/000 to Km.85/600 (Tindivanam-Krishnagiri Section) of NH66 in the State of Tamil Nadu, has beenfairly published. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. Pursuant to the above Notification, a section of public inGingee Town, have opposed the proposed alignment of by-pass on thefollowing grounds:(a) A number of public utilities, viz., BSNL Office, regulatedmarket committee, government hospital, police station, taluk officeand sub-Registrar Office are located near the place where the by-passis now proposed to commence.(b) Vehicles transporting paddy and other agricultural produceto the regulated market will be parked on the highway from theregulated market up to the traveller's bungalow.(c) A large number of vehicles will be plying in the road forMelmalaiyanur Temple on Amavasyai and Thiruvannamalai Temple onPournami days causing traffic jams.(d) Since the proposed by-pass will be in close proximity to thetown, there will be no room for expansion of the town.19. The representatives of the public and prominent politicianshave met and made representations to the District Collector,Villupuram. The District Collector visited Gingee town on 30.1.2010with the Project Director, NHAI and other officials and inspected thealignment proposed by the NHAI and the alternative alignmentsuggested by the objection petitioners and sent a report to theSecretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat, Chennai-9, suggesting that as an alternative, the by-pass can be laid originating from Nangilikondan Village, pass throughPerumbugai, Melkalavoy, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram villages andjoin the NH skirting the Gingee Fort, so that the alternativealignment will not touch Gingee town. He had requested the Secretaryto Government to address the NHAI for passing appropriate orders. Thealternative alignment suggested by the District Collector was alsosuggested by Thiru.M.Krishnaswamy, Member of Parliament, to theMinister of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, for which, theMinister, vide his letter NHAI/TECH/TN/VIP/2010 dated 28.7.2010 hadrejected the above suggestion on the ground that:(i) the alternative alignment is not only longer and costlier,but will also affect more land, structures and wells.(ii) it requires major bridge across Sankaraparani river for308m.(iii) the Project Appraisal Committee has asked to scale downthe cost of the project, whereas the increase in length willautomatically escalate the project cost. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. However, the District Collector, Villupuram, in his letterdated 31.8.2010 had addressed the Secretary to Government, Highwaysand Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and requested toaddress NHAI to re-consider their decision regarding Gingee by-pass,since the by-pass proposed by the NHAI is in close proximity of thetown and it will not serve the purpose of avoiding congestion. Againin his letter dated 12.1.2011, addressed to the Secretary toGovernment, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat,Chennai-9, the District Collector, Villupuram, suggested a slightmodification to the alignment proposed by NHAI, according to therepresentation received from the President, Town Panchayat, Gingee,wherein it was suggested that the proposed by-pass may be laid alongthe Chetpet road prior to Sankarabarani River bridge and requested toaddress the NHAI to consider the feasibility of the suggestion. Thedeviation suggested by the President, Town Panchayat, and recommendedby the District Collector, was inspected by the Chief GeneralManager, NHAI, Chennai and the technical opinion of the DPRConsultant who had designed the by-pass also was called for by theNHAI. The DPR consultant had studied in detail the alignment assuggested by the local Panchayat and recommended by the DistrictCollector, Villupuram and reported that this alignment cannot fulfilthe engineering requirements of NHAI standards and as such, it is notfeasible to change the alignment as recommended by the DistrictCollector. The Project Director, NHAI, Villupuram in his letter dated24.5.2011, addressed to the District Collector, has stated that thechange in alignment is not feasible. The Project Director, NHAI, hasalso stated that the Chetpet road indicated in Option IV in theaffidavit, is running along the River bank and the suggestedalignment on existing road with acute bend is not feasible to provideproper curve and bridge etc., as per design standards of NHAI. Sincethe River is very nearer to road, curve will come inside the Riverwhich is technically not feasible. Hence, the change in alignment tothe by-pass is not feasible.21. In the above circumstances, the objections were made by thepetitioners, and they assail the Notification on the ground thatthere is no proper description of the lands, and therefore, it isvitiated and their objections were not considered properly. Hence,they sought to quash the Notification issued under Section 3-A of theAct.22. To examine the above position, at the first instance, it isrelevant to notice Section 3-A of the Act, which reads as follows:"Section 3-A:Power to acquire land, etc.-(1) Where theCentral Government is satisfied that for a public purposeany land is required for the building, maintenance,management or operation of a national highway or partthereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette,declare its intention to acquire such land. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall givea brief description of the land.(3) The competent authority shall cause the substanceof the notification to be published in two local newspapers,one of which will be in a vernacular language."23. On a perusal of the Notification issued under Section 3-A ofthe Act, in compliance of the above provisions, from the records, itreveals that the Notification is made with proper description,namely, the extent of lands, boundaries, measurements and otherparticulars. The second respondent published the substance ofSection 3-A(1) Notification in local newspapers, namely in Tamil in"Dinamani" and in English in "The New Indian Express" on 3.12.2010.The brief particulars of lands sought to be acquired, have been givenin the Schedule therein, as required by law. It is an admittedposition that Section 3-A(1) Notification is only preliminaryNotification, notifying the intention of the Government to acquirecertain lands for public purpose, for building, maintenance,management or operation of a National Highway. It is further seenfrom the records that there is proposed alignment for four laning ofTindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnapuram Section, with the particularstretch of Gingee by-pass to start at Km.63/090 and end at Km.71/260with a total length of 10.76 kms. and it was restructured as two-lanedue to lack of cost effectiveness and the new alignment starts fromkm.65.548 and ends at Km.68.625 with a length of 4.77 kms. in NH66.Accordingly, the Schedule to the Notification contains the name ofthe District, Taluk, Village, Survey Number, type of land, nature ofland and the area (in square meters), which includes TindivanamTaluk/Tindivanam Village, Gingee Taluk/Krishnapuram and SirukadamburVillages and also includes Sakkarapuram Village, where thepetitioners' lands are located. The sketch for the same has also beenenclosed in the typed set of papers produced before this Court. Forinstance, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.18688 of 2011,namely, A.R.Adil Basha, he is the owner of the land comprised inR.S.No.68/1A2 of an extent of 1000 Sq.Metres, situated atSakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District and thedetails have been shown in the Schedule to the Notification. Similarposition has also been indicated in respect of the other landsbelonging to the other petitioners. Therefore, there is briefdescription of the land as contemplated under the provisions ofSection 3-A of the Act. 24. It is to be seen that to meet the requirement of Section 3-Aof the Act, there should be brief description of the lands in theacquisition Notification and the plan may also be made available.Then the area under acquisition becomes identifiable immediately. Inorder to examine the question as to whether the impugned Notificationmeets the requirement of the description of the lands as contemplatedunder Section 3-A(2) of the Act, it would not be possible to proceedto determine the necessity of acquisition of a particular plot of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ land without preparation of a proper plan. The appendix to theimpugned Notification shows that in many cases, small parts of thelarger chunks of lands have been notified for acquisition. Therefore,the Notification in question makes the plan/sketch of the area inoccupation. The absence of plan also renders a right to fileobjections under Section 3-C(1) of the Act, nugatory. If there isproper description of the lands with other particulars andplan/sketch, the objector, namely the land owner can make aneffective objection.25. In this regard, similar matter arose for considerationbefore the Supreme Court, reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477 (CompetentAuthority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory), wherein, the Supreme Courtlaid down the legal proposition. In this case, the Supreme Courtreferred to its earlier decision reported in 1999 (7) SCC 44 (DelhiAdmn. Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban), in which, the Supreme Court laid downthe proposition while dealing with the case under the LandAcquisition Act, which confers a general right to object toacquisition of land under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.Failure to exercise that right could be said to be acquiescence. TheNational Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act, there isno right to object to acquisition of land, except on the question ofits user. Therefore, the present objection has to be decidedindependently of the right to file objections. De hors the right tofile objection, the validity of the Notification has to be considered.26. It is vehemently argued that the objection of every aspectincluding the acquisition of land, has to be considered. But, theobjection about the use of land alone is a matter required to beconsidered under the provisions of National Highways Act, and such aright is now settled as a legal right with regard to questioning theuse of the lands and not the acquisition.27. Analysing the above factors and on a perusal of the entirerecords, it reveals that a person could now which part of the landsis under acquisition in order to make an effective objection inrespect of the use of the lands. The particulars shown in theSchedule to the Notification as contemplated under Section 3-A(2) ofthe Act, are only brief description and the brief description doesnot mean a complete description and that would not be the intentionof the statute. The acquisition Notification is only required toconvey to the persons claiming interest in the lands about theintention of the Government to acquire a particular land. Thedescription given in the impugned Notification meets the requirementunder Section 3-A of the Act.28. A perusal of the objections made by the petitioners,reveals that mere perusal of the plan clearly indicated the fact thateven though it is named as by-pass road for Gingee, but in allpractical purposes, the by-pass road is proposed to be laid only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ through Gingee Town and therefore, it not a by-pass road and it isonly widening a portion of the road at Gingee and by laying such aroad, it will affect thousands of individuals, traffic congestion,affecting agricultural lands, water resources and school goingchildren. The by-pass road should have been made only through ChetpetRoad without touching the Gingee Town. The competent authority hasforgotten the nearby religious town at Tiruvannamalai and thehardship in case of acquisition of lands. The petitioners have alsoraised objection that in the publication in the newspapers, thedescription of the lands proposed to be acquired, has not beenproperly given.29. The real intention of the petitioners as seen from theobjections is mainly on the public cause and not the individual andthey have not stated as to what could be the prejudice if the land isacquired and as to what kind of damages it causes to the petitioners,irrespective of the fact whether there is proper description or not.30. It is to be vividly seen that the Notification and thedescription made in the Schedule, is in compliance of the provisionsof the Act and also the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court invarious decisions, and therefore, this Court has no reason to acceptthe contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that thereis no proper description of the lands as per the provisions of theAct. This contention fails and there is no substance in the same.31. As regards the question of consideration of the objectionsindependently by the competent authority, it is appropriate to noticeSection 3-C of the Act, which reads as follows:"Section 3-C: Hearing of objections.--(1) Any personinterested in the land may, within twenty-one days from thedate of publication of the notification under sub-section(1) of section 3-A, object to the use of the land for thepurpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section.(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall bemade to the competent authority in writing and shall setout the grounds thereof and the competent authority shallgive the objector an opportunity of being heard, either inperson or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearingall such objections and after making such further enquiry,if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, byorder, either allow or disallow the objections.(3) Any order made by the competent authority undersub-section (2) shall be final." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. Though it is contended that the competent authority hasextracted the report of the NHAI and considered the objections, it isseen from the records that the competent authority, after consideringevery aspect, including the report of the NHAI, passed a speakingorder, considering every objection raised by the petitioners anddecided the objections after giving an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioners. While dealing with the objections, it is for thecompetent authority to take note of what are all the backgroundmaterials to decide about each and every objection, including thereport of the NHAI. Merely because the competent authority had takeninto account the report of the NHAI, it cannot be construed that thecompetent authority has not independently decided the objections. Ona perusal of the order passed by the competent authority, it is seenthat he has considered each and every aspect of the matter and over-ruled the objections, taking into account the larger public interestinvolved in the case and the need for implementation of the project,after following the procedures contemplated under the provisions ofthe Act. Therefore, the competent authority's order, after dueconsideration of every aspect, cannot be stated to have been passedwithout application of mind. In fact, it is the order in every aspectof considering the petitioners' objections.33. The petitioners assail the order of the competent authorityon the ground that he has relied on the private consultancy report asfurnished by the NHAI. In this regard, it is to be seen that thedetailed project consultants are the technical experts, who have beenappointed by the NHAI for preparation of the detailed project reportbased on the feasibility study and the engineering requirement,ground geometry as well as various options. The project alignment hasbeen suggested after taking into account all the vital factors, suchas cost to be incurred, convenience of the public, design standardsof NHAI, the extent of lands to be acquired, etc., and thereafter,the approval was granted by the Public Private ParticipationAppraisal Committee (PPPAC) and the Cabinet Committee onInfrastructure (CCI). It is under the domain of the authorities tohave the expert opinion including consideration of the feasibilityreport and it is an administrative requirement, and the same alwaysform part of the execution of any larger public project, whichinvolves taking note of the feasibility report and the economicalviability and other matters concerned with the Government projects.The expert opinion has been taken into account by the competentauthority while deciding the objections and it cannot be found to bethe procedures/rules in deviation, and there is due consideration ofevery objections. Therefore, the contention in this regard also hasno substance and the same has to be rejected.34. One more aspect which has to be noticed by this Court in theprocess of these land acquisition proceedings, is that the DistrictCollector, who is not concerned with the land acquisition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings, has made certain recommendations based on the request ofthe villagers/land owners. It is more important to analyse as to whatkind of role can a District Collector is entitled to play in thematter of land acquisition proceedings. It is only the competentauthority who has to initiate the land acquisition proceedingspertaining to National Highways project. Section 3(a) of the NationalHighways Act defines the competent authority as any person orauthority authorised by the Central Government, by notification inthe Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competentauthority for such area as may be specified in the notification. Thatauthority shall have the powers to cause the substance of theNotification to be published under Section 3-A of the Act, in themanner provided therein, to hear the objections under Section 3-C(2),to make a report under Section 3-D for declaration of acquisition, totake steps under Section 3-E for possession, to determine the amountpayable as compensation, under Section 3-G and to pay the amount ofcompensation deposited by the Central Government, under Section 3-Hof the Act. The competent authority has been assigned with the powersof Civil Court, under Section 3-I of the Act. If such powers arevested with the competent authority, it is for that authority aloneunder the Act who can exercise such powers/functions/duties assignedexclusively for that purpose. In this case, the competent authorityhas acted as per law and proceeded with the land acquisitionproceedings.35. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners thatthe District Collector's recommendations are more relevant forconsideration of the objections, which had been lost sight of by thecompetent authority. In this connection, it is to be stated that theDistrict Collector has taken the views of the land owners/public inthe matter of public concern and who brought the same to the noticeof the Government as well as the Competent authority and alsorecommended certain things for re-alignment and also suggestedalternatives, and thereby, caused serious delay in the execution ofthe project, and the said act of the District Collector is contraryto the provisions of the Act, when he is not empowered to act onbehalf of any person concerned in the acquisition proceedings. Theintention of the District Collector and the manner in which he hasrecommended certain aspects, are not appreciable in the matter ofexecution of a public project. Therefore, this Court is inclined toobserve that in the acquisition of the lands for a public purpose, itis only the authority concerned, who is assigned with the task ofacquisition, who is competent to look into the matter and it is notfor others to come into the picture and play some role. Such a roleshould be avoided in the matters which may cause prejudice to thestake-holders.36. Coming to the next aspect, time and again, the underlyingprinciples for acquisition of land for a public purpose and itsimpact on the persons aggrieved, are well defined. The means of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transportation are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansionand modernisation in a growing global development, since our countryhas now embarked upon various ambitious programmes of economicadvancement to make our country economically competitive in theglobal economy, and for the progress of our country, the means oftransportation are very important, for which, very often, there is aneed for acquisition of land for the development of a public roadtransport system and widening the roads forming the National Highwaysin the country. In the process of such acquisition, the projects aretime bound. If there is any delay in the project, it may cause andincur heavy financial loss. In most of the cases, the personsaffected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. Challengesare generally in the shape of Writ Petitions filed in High Courts.Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases,orders, by way of stay or injunction, are also made. 37. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time hascome where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mindwhile exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interest ofjustice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. A publicpurpose will always prevail over a private interest. 38. In the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, theinterest of justice and public interest coalesce. They are very oftenone and the same, and therefore, the Courts have to weigh the publicinterest vis-a-vis the private interest, while exercising the powerunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indeed, any of theirdiscretionary powers. It may even be open to the Court to direct, incase it finds finally that the acquisition is vitiated on account ofnon-compliance with some legal requirement, that the personsinterested shall be entitled to a particular amount of damages to beawarded as a lumpsum or calculated at a certain percentage ofcompensation payable. Now, the trend is that as far as thecompensation is concerned, the authorities as well as Courts arearriving at a fair determination of compensation, taking intoconsideration the various factors, namely, the market value,potentiality of the lands and other developments of the lands inquestion. Ultimately, there are many ways of affording appropriaterelief while redressing the grievances of the petitioners and it is amatter of balancing the competing interests and beyond that, it isneither possible nor advisable to say anything. These considerationswill be duly borne in mind by the Courts while dealing with thechallenges to the acquisition proceedings. This view is also endorsedin various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court.39. With the above observations, and for the foregoingreasonings, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. TheMiscellaneous Petitions are closed. It is always open to thepetitioners herein to claim a fair and proper compensation for their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lands, which are acquired for a public purpose, in which event, therespondents are bound to consider the same, taking intoconsideration the various factors in determining a fair and propercompensation.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcsTo1. The Project Director (A/C), National Highways Authority of India, (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways), O/o The Project Director PIU, No.10, Govindasamy Nagar, Vazhudhareddy Post, Villupuram-605 401.2. The Competent Authority/Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Collectorate, Villupuram.+17 ccs to Mr.G. Ethirajulu, Sr.64783+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader Sr.65056+ 2 ccs to Mr.P. Wilson, Sr.64822, 64823 W.P.No.18688 of 2001, etc. batchTS(CO)RH, EU 22.11.11