Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for the reasons as stated therein.) The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: "The petition is filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent dated 12.11.2004 made in Na.Ka.C1:25498-02, quash the same and forbear the first respondent herein from making any declaration under Section 3D of the National Highways Act (Central Act 48/1956) 1956 pursuant to the proceedings of the third respondent dated 12.11.2004 made in Na.Ka.C1.25498-02." 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land situated in Survey Nos.349/2, 356/3E and 356/4 Yagapurm Village, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. According to the petitioner, when the notification dated 14.6.2004 was published by the first respondent, viz., Director General of Road Development, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways under Section 3A of the National Highways Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1956') for the purpose of four laning and widening the National Highway No.45 B, he objected to the same after seeing the advertisement in the newspaper. According to the petitioner, a part of Highway coming from Trichirapalli to Viralimalai, the proposed alignment, falls within the land owned by him. He also stated that he has made a representation dated 28.6.2004 to the authorities raising objection to the proposed acquisition of his land. It is also stated that the petitioner, on coming to know that there is a proposal to acquire the land, even before the notification was published, sent representations dated 30.11.2003, 28.6.2004, 08.7.2004 and 09.9.2004. The representations made by him and the nature of objection raised by him was that the proposed road alignment will affect a big concrete dwelling house, irrigating well as well as small Murugan Temple. There are about 25 families of agricultural labourers engaged in the work and considerable amounts have been spent for digging a well. It is further stated that more than 100 adjoining properties were also sought to be acquired. According to him, the existing road itself can be used for four lane traffic by putting a road divider in the middle of the road and there is no necessity to acquire the land. He further stated that some of the lands can be spared by making an alteration in the plan. According to him, the existing road itself can be used for four lane traffic by putting a road divider in the middle of the road and there is no necessity to acquire the land. He further stated that some of the lands can be spared by making an alteration in the plan. It is further stated by him that the Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, National Highways – 2, by report dated 31.12.2003, has informed the authorities about the objection raised by the petitioner. However, the third respondent District Revenue Officer, Trichirapalli, overruled the said objection and served the impugned order dated 12.11.2004, which, according to the petitioner, is illegal. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 29.12.2004 and interim orders of injunction and stay were passed in W.P.M.P.Nos.46509 of 2004 and 46510 of 2004 and the same were sought to be vacated by the second respondent by filing petition in W.V.M.P.No.999 of 2005. Apparently, when this matter was sought to be pursued, it was found that the records were missing and by orders of this Court dated 27.6.2006, the records were reconstructed and the matter was posted for hearing. When the petition in W.V.M.P.No.999 of 2005 came up for hearing, with the consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. 4.1. On behalf of the second respondent, viz., Planning Director, National Highways, a counter affidavit dated 11.02.2005 has been filed. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the objection raised by the petitioner was duly taken note of by the respondents and after due consideration, it was rejected. With reference to the re-alignment proposed by the petitioner, in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: "As the realignment and right of way of the proposed NH-45B has already been firmed by the project consultants during 2001, it was observed that no alteration or deviation could be made in the LA proceeding relating to this Project, it was therefore informed the petitioner to react as a owner of the land by adducing sufficient documentary evidences about the subsisting interest in the land before the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) and claim compensation." 4.2. It is also stated in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit as follows: "The Competent Authority (L.A.) has followed invariably all the guidelines and procedures stipulated in Section 3B of NH Act 1956. It is also stated in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit as follows: "The Competent Authority (L.A.) has followed invariably all the guidelines and procedures stipulated in Section 3B of NH Act 1956. Measurement was made in the area, and the actual extent to be acquired has been ascertained. Accordingly, necessary survey records were prepared based on the land plans and scheduled furnished by the NHAI after due verification of records and inspection of location." 4.3. With reference to the realignment of road, in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: "Para 16: It is submitted that the project preparation has been formulated during 2001. After taking into consideration of the location, smooth vehicular traffic, which assured accident free travel, the realignment of road has been proposed by the consultants and firmed by them. The project is going to be implemented shortly. Hence, any deviation in the on going project as sought for by the petitioner may cause much hindrance and hardship in the implementation of this project. Para 17: It is submitted that while emanating a project the location of the land, and all the matters concerning the full cover of the project are considered and finally firmed by consultants and implemented accordingly. Further all the notifications are published in the Gazette of India after due scrutiny by the Central Government in Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Section 10 contemplates the notification / agreement in the implementation of project." 4.4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that while the objection raised by the petitioner has been rejected after due consideration, but, however, it was assured that necessary compensation will be paid to him. 5. The writ petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 12.7.2006 reiterating the contentions made by him in the affidavit. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the stand taken by the respondents was erroneous and his objection was duly considered by the competent authority. 6. I have heard the arguments of Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.T.Dhanyakumar and Mr.E.Murugesan appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing the third respondent and perused the records. 7. 6. I have heard the arguments of Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.T.Dhanyakumar and Mr.E.Murugesan appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing the third respondent and perused the records. 7. Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the only safeguard provided under the Act 1956 is only a procedural safeguard and that has not been followed in the present case. Secondly, he submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner was not duly considered by the respondents. He also stated that the petitioner's objection was not that there should not be a widening of the Highway but the land that is sought for, should be realigned. In fact, if part of the Survey Nos.348, 349 and 356 are taken together, the other lands can be excluded. In fact, he himself has stated in his representation dated 09.9.2004 that if the other lands are taken, it will involve lesser cost whereas if his lands are acquired, the Government will have to pay him more amount of compensation. In his further representation, he has stated that an extent of 0.66.0 acres of lands in Survey No.349/2 belong to him. He has stated that he has no objection for acquisition of the other land, which is extracted below: 8. Per contra, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents 1 and 2, contended that this itself would show that the petitioner had filed objections to the draft notification and he was not basically against the acquisition of lands for the widening of the National Highways. The only objection seems to be the acquisition of fertile land which belongs to the petitioner and therefore, he has come up with the theory of realignment of the land. This objection was considered by the experts, who have drafted the original development plan and no deviation was found from the original plan. In fact, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has produced a detailed map showing the existing road and the proposed widening of the National Highways. It can be seen that if the suggestion of the petitioner is accepted, then it will require a big detour, which is not conducive for National Highway, especially, considering the fact that these Highways are linked to the other National Highways in the country. It can be seen that if the suggestion of the petitioner is accepted, then it will require a big detour, which is not conducive for National Highway, especially, considering the fact that these Highways are linked to the other National Highways in the country. The learned Standing Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the objection of the petitioner was duly considered and realignment was not possible and it will frustrate the very process itself. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that since the consultants were experts in the field, there is nothing wrong in the competent authority referring to their opinion and accepting the same as part of his order and in all the land acquisition proceedings, similar procedure alone is followed. 9. In this context, it is useful to refer to the recent decision of the Full Bench of this Court dated 25.8.2006 made in W.P.No.2288 of 1997, etc. batch. Speaking for the Full Bench, Justice P.K.Misra, in paragraph 42 of the order, has observed as follows, which will answer the first objection raised by the petitioner. "Even though in a given case the order which is communicated to the land owner does not indicate any reason why the objection has been rejected, if the application of mind is reflected in the file even by way of notings and endorsements, the ultimate decision to acquire the land cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the order which is communicated to the land owner/objector does not contain any detailed reasons. The requirement is that the materials on record, that is to say the relevant file, should indicate application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and not passing of a formal reasoned order as is required in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The function obviously being administrative in nature, it is futile to expect furnishing of detailed reasons in the order which is communicated to the person. It is necessary to enter such caveat lest it may be construed that in every case, where the order of rejection communicated to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the proceeding stands vitiated. Ultimately the court is required to find out in each case whether there has been application of mind. It is necessary to enter such caveat lest it may be construed that in every case, where the order of rejection communicated to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the proceeding stands vitiated. Ultimately the court is required to find out in each case whether there has been application of mind. Therefore, the brief reasons, which are contemplated, can be given either in the file in the shape of notings, endorsements, etc., or even can be reflected in the order." 10. With reference to the realignment of the road so as to exclude the petitioner's land, a similar contention came up before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1070 and 1071 of 2006 and the Division Bench in its judgment dated 07.9.2006 rejected such a contention. Though the said judgment dealt with the case of Tamil Nadu State Highways, but, yet, it is relevant to refer to the same as the similar contention is being raised in the present writ petition. It is worthwhile to quote paragraph 27 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: "This exercise as to whether the writ petitioners' building should be allowed to stand by providing 3 to 4 feet in front of the said building, has already been done by the authorities more than once which was recorded by the learned Judge. In any event, as per the sketch shown by the State, it is not the appellants' building alone that had come under the acquisition. But hindrance of all the buildings are sought to be removed either partially or fully for the purpose of widening the OMR Road." 11. In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same shall stand dismissed. Interim orders granted in W.P.M.P.No.46509 and 46510 of 2004 shall stand vacated. In view of the same, W.V.M.P.No.999 of 2005 shall stand closed. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.