Judgment :- (Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents relating to Section 15(1) notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.92, Highways, dated 25.04.2005 and published at pages 7 to 13 of Part II Section 2 of Extraordinary Issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.97 dated 25.04.2005 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the land of the petitioners herein and directing the respondents to change the alignment in such a way that the expansion of old Mahabalipuram Road (IT Corridor Express Way) is equal "from the middle of the highway" on both sides.) These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act in G.O.Ms. No. 92 dt. 25.4.2005 and published at Page Nos. 7 to 13 Section 2 of the Extraordinary Order of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.97 dated 25.4.2005. 2. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9557/2006 is concerned, the land acquired is 146 sq.m., in S.No.280/1B1B, Kottivakkam Village. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9559/2006 is concerned, the extent acquired is 325 sq.m. in S.No. 282/1A2 in Kottivakkam Village and as far as the petitioners in W.P. No. 10460/2006 is concerned, the land acquired is 125 sq.m. in S.No. 280/1G2 in Kottivakkam Village. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the lands were not acquired in equal extent from the middle of the highway. Consequence of this, though the petitioners' lands have been acquired, to remove the curves, so as to have a straight road, but, by acquiring unequal extent of land from the middle of the highway, curves have been created. According to the learned senior counsel, since, the Chief Engineer of the Highways Department is residing in the opposite side, the lands have been acquired to a lesser extent on the opposite side compared to the lands acquired from the petitioners. Learned senior counsel further argued that though objections have been raised by the petitioners, in the enquiry conducted, the Tahsildar has not forwarded the said objections to the Government. Consequence of this, in spite of raising objections, their objections were not considered before passing the impugned order. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, while rejecting the objections raised by the owner, specific reasons have to be given. Consequence of this, in spite of raising objections, their objections were not considered before passing the impugned order. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, while rejecting the objections raised by the owner, specific reasons have to be given. But, without assigning any reason and without even considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, merely stating in the notification, that their objections were not considered is not sufficient, as such, prima facie the impugned orders have been passed without following the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 has contended that following the road geometry and basing on the advice of the international architect, who have been engaged for this purpose, the lands have been acquired. Apart from this, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, for removing the curves in more than one place, it is inevitable a curve will be created in another place. But, as far as acquisition of these lands are concerned, the Chief Engineer of the Highways department does not have any role to play. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Chief Engineer, who is the 4th respondent herein, has occupied the said land only in November, 2005 whereas the acquisition proceedings have been started in the year 2004. As such, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in order to favour the 4th respondent alone, equal extents of land were not acquired on both sides cannot be accepted. The Additional Advocate General further submitted that as far as the petitioners are concerned, notice has been issued under Section 15(2) and first and second enquiry have been conducted and also the petitioners have participated in the enquiry and notice under Section 15(1) has been passed in April 2005, itself and possession of the land was also taken on 28.11.2005 as detailed below: That apart, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner in W.P. No. 9557/2006 has raised an objection to the effect that alignment may be changed and the acquisition of the petitioner's land maybe avoided. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9559/2006 is concerned, since an industrial unit is located in the land, it will get affected by the proposed acquisition. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9559/2006 is concerned, since an industrial unit is located in the land, it will get affected by the proposed acquisition. As far as the petitioners in W.P. No. 10460/2006 is concerned, acquisition proceedings may be dropped or the petitioners may be given an alternative site for running their industrial unit. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 has been followed as detailed above. That apart, these objections were forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Government and after considering the objections alone, the impugned notification has been issued. That apart, the project announced by the Government specifically envisages widening of the road with modern road features, as such, upgradation cannot be attempted without acquiring the land along the road wherever it is necessary. That apart, the proposed project is to form a six lane express way with service road and footpath, in all, measuring 41 m in width. The alignment for the proposed six lane information technology express way was fixed conforming to the relevant standards. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the lands have been acquired not equally on both sides. But, since the project involves widening of the road equally on either side of the alignment of the existing road, the curves and kinks in the existing alignment have been sought to be corrected to the extent possible. As such, the existing road cannot be widened equally on either side. Apart from that, the contention of the petitioners that unfair steps were taken to protect the land owners of the opposite side is totally incorrect since, the entire matter has been left with the experts and basing on the report submitted by them, lands have been acquired. Basing on the report only, the land acquisition officer, who is the authority in this regard, has submitted a report with regard to the proposed acquisition of land. Basing on that alone, lands have been acquired. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, though the objections raised by the petitioners were forwarded to the Government and the Government, after considering the entire report has rejected the same and all these materials are available in the concerned file. Basing on that alone, lands have been acquired. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, though the objections raised by the petitioners were forwarded to the Government and the Government, after considering the entire report has rejected the same and all these materials are available in the concerned file. As such, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the writ petitions do not have any merit at all and the same have to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. 6. Admittedly, the lands in question have been acquired for the expansion of Old Mahabalipuram Road. The project announced by the Government basically envisages widening of the road with modern road features. This upgradation cannot be attempted without acquiring the lands along the road wherever it is necessary. The old Mahabalipuram Road, as it existed was a four lane road and was about 20 to 25 metres wide. The proposed project is to form a six lane expressway with service road and footpath, in all measuring 41 metres in width. As per the counter affidavit of the respondents, the alignment for the proposed six lane Information Technology Corridor Expressway was fixed conforming to the relevant standards. As such, to fulfill this condition, it is inevitable to acquire the lands. If, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the lands have been acquired in equal proportion from the middle of the road, in order to protect the interest of certain individuals, that will have a severe consequence and that apart, the purpose of the acquisition of these lands may also be not possible to achieve. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, as far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9557/2006, he alone has made a request for change of alignment. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9559/2006 is concerned, the objection raised is that there is an industrial unit and the same will get affected by the proposed acquisition and the petitioners in W.P. No. 10460/2006 have submitted an objection to drop the acquisition proceedings or in the alternative that the petitioners may be given an alternative site. These objections were forwarded and replies were read out during the second enquiry under Section 15(2) of the Highways Act. These objections were forwarded and replies were read out during the second enquiry under Section 15(2) of the Highways Act. As such, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the objections were not considered and forwarded to the Government will not stand. Even as per the records also, after the second enquiry, the Collector of Kancheepuram has submitted a report dated 8.3.2005 to the Secretary to Government, Highways Department. 7. With regard to the second contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the lands were not acquired in equal extents on both sides from the middle of the road is concerned, as stated earlier, the lands have been acquired for expansion of the old Mahabalipuram Road (IT Corridor Expressway) taking into consideration the heavy traffic and other relevant factors to widen the road from 25 metres to 41 metres. As such, to achieve this purpose, experts' opinion were sought as per the counter affidavit and basing on the report submitted by the expert body alone, lands have been acquired. Apart from this, from the letter of the Government dated 31.1.2006, it is seen that in view of the directions given by this court in W.P. Nos. 18050 & 18051 of 2005 dated 21.6.2006, an independent professional chartered Engineer M/s. D. Parthasarathy Associates was appointed to study the request of the petitioners regarding sparing of a piece of land on which construction has already come up. But, the report submitted by the said Associates is to the effect that the portion of the land in question is very much required for the proposed improvement works on the IT Corridor Expressway. Apart from this, as per this report also, the alignment has been fixed after a great deal of investigation and requirement of the road using public. Besides, the change of alignment, as required by the individuals will have a far-reaching consequence on the road development and this opinion of M/s. Parthasarathy Associates is also confirmed by the Secretary to Government, Highways Department. That apart, there cannot be a road widening as contemplated under the IT Corridor Expressway Project unless the entire extent specified for acquisition, including the property of the petitioners becomes available. Besides, when a project has been laid down for public purpose, certainly, it is unavoidable causing hardships to certain individuals. That apart, there cannot be a road widening as contemplated under the IT Corridor Expressway Project unless the entire extent specified for acquisition, including the property of the petitioners becomes available. Besides, when a project has been laid down for public purpose, certainly, it is unavoidable causing hardships to certain individuals. As far as the case on hand is concerned, for the lands acquired by the Department, the land owners, who have parted with the lands have been compensated in terms of money. That apart, for the sake of few individuals, the project, which has been developed for public purpose cannot be altered or modified to suit their convenience. That will defeat the very object of the project itself. Besides, as far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that though the lands have been acquired only for the purpose of removing the curves in the process of widening the road, in fact, curves have been created now, is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, to remove the curves, in certain places, it is inevitable to create a curve in one or two places. Besides, the proposed project is to upgrade the road development to world standards. In fact, during the course of the arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that the entire project has been formulated after entrusting the matter to foreign experts and basing on the their report alone, all steps have been taken and finalised. Hence, the third contention of the learned senior counsel will also not stand. 8. With regard to the fourth contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that since the Chief Engineer, Highways Department is residing in the opposite side, lesser extent of land has been acquired from that side compared to the lands acquired from the petitioners' property is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Chief Engineer has become a resident of that place only from November, 2005, whereas the project has started in the year 2004. Hence, this contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners will also not stand. Apart from this, as per the records produced by the Additional Advocate General, the lands have been taken possession of as early as 28.11.2005. Hence, this contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners will also not stand. Apart from this, as per the records produced by the Additional Advocate General, the lands have been taken possession of as early as 28.11.2005. But, the writ petition has been filed only in March, 2006, long after possession being taken over by the respondent Department. As far as the earlier writ petitions are concerned, the same were filed on 30.11.2005. Even prior to this, the lands have been taken possession of. Hence, while implementing a public project, it is inevitable that certain individuals have to face hardships. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petitions and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps are dismissed.