Judgment H.L. Gokhale, C.J. Heard Mr.D. Krishnakumar, learned counsel in support of these appeals. Mr. J. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General appears for the second respondent. 2. The appeals seek to challenge the orders passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants herein. The respondents have issued a notification dated 03.01.2008 under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 calling upon the appellants and the other land owners to submit objections, if any, within the time specified therein, to the proposed land acquisition for the purpose of building, maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.67. 3. Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, as inserted by the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, reads as follows:- "3-A. Power to acquire land, etc. – (1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. .(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land. .(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language." 4. The purpose for which these lands are acquired by the respondents is explained in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed in support of the petition bearing W.P.No.8393 of 2008, wherein it is stated that the land in question is required for providing facilities like truck parking, spare parts shops, minor repairs and vulganizing facilities, washing and servicing, fueling pump, etc. It was submitted by the respondents that the acquisition is thus for maintenance, management and operation of the concerned National Highway No.67. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that these purposes for the benefit of the truck owners cannot be said to be falling under the maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway. 5. Now, as can be seen from Section 3-A quoted above, it speaks of building, maintenance, management and also operation of a National Highway. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that these purposes for the benefit of the truck owners cannot be said to be falling under the maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway. 5. Now, as can be seen from Section 3-A quoted above, it speaks of building, maintenance, management and also operation of a National Highway. The operation of a National Highway would certainly include the facilities to be provided to the operators on the National Highway, such as, the trucks, buses and other vehicles. The land will be required for providing facilities to them so that the National Highway is utilized and maintained properly. 6. Mr. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General submits that these facilities at certain intervals on the Highway are necessary as per the standards laid down by the Indian Road Congress for the safe driving and relaxation by the truck drivers. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that a similar provision under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 provides for in section 15 that if a land is required for any purpose incidental or ancillary, acquisition can be resorted to. He submits that such a specific provision is not there under the National Highways Act, 1956. 8. In our view, such a specific provision is not necessary. The term "operation of a National Highway" will cover providing these facilities and, in any case, building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway are different facets of public purpose. The principal part of the Section permits the Central Government to acquire a land for public purpose and some facets of public purpose are mentioned as building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway. 9. In our view, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct. Both the writ appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.