JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J.- This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order Dated 17.3.2011 passed by the Learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in FAO No. 124 of 2010 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the Order Dated 1.10.2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 697 of 2010 (arising out of C.S. No. 1613 of 2010) rejecting the Petitioner's application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC. 2. The Plaintiff-Petitioner has filed the suit (C.S. No. 1613 of 2010) before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants-O.Ps. from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit properties and from demolishing the structure existing over the suit properties on the allegation that the Petitioner purchased the suit land in question and has constructed a hotel and residential house there over with the approval of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority and that having received notices from the Authorized Officer-National Highways Authority recently in Case Nos. 27/26/2002 and 27/8/2002 he came to learn that the suit properties were being acquired for the purpose of widening of N.H. No.5.lt is contended by him that the Notification under Section 3-A of The National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) (in short, "the Act") was not duly published in the newspapers as required under the statute and that in the matter of acquisition there was non-compliance of mandatory statutory provisions. 3. With the aforesaid contentions and the averments the Plaintiff- Petitioner also initiated IA No. 697 of 2010 praying for interim injunction restraining the O.Ps. from evicting the Petitioner from the suit properties and demolishing the structure standing there over. The case of the O.Ps. in their objection was that all the statutory provisions were duly followed and the notification of the intended acquisition was issued under Section 3-A of the Act in the Official Gazette as well as in the newspapers and that the Petitioner raised no objection to the proposed acquisition for which the notification of declaration of acquisition under Section 3-D(1) of the Act has already been published and that in view of the provisions contained in Sub Section (4) of S.3-D of the Act the suit is not maintainable and that the matter with regard to acceptance of the compensation by the Petitioner only remains pending. 4. 4. The Trial Court by its Order Dated 1.12.2010 dismissed the IA holding that the Petitioner has no prima facie case in view of the bar contained in S. 3-D(4) of the Act and has no balance of convenience in his favour. The said order of the Trial court was challenged before the District Judge in FAO No. 124 of 2010 which was dismissed by the impugned Order Dated 17.3.211 confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. 5. In assailing the impugned orders the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the findings of the Courts below that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Sub Section (4) of S.3-D of the Act is not correct as the Civil Court has always jurisdiction to entertain a suit on the ground of non-Compliance of mandatory statutory requirements even where its jurisdiction is barred. It is his further submission that no notice was issued to the Petitioner of the proposed acquisition and the Petitioner was unaware of publication of Section 3-A. Notification in any newspaper and therefore the subsequent notification of declaration of acquisition issued under Section 3-D of the Act is bad in law. The Learned Counsel for the O.Ps., on the other hand, contends that the Notification under Section 3-A of the Act was duly published in the official Gazette vide S.O. 492(E) dated 30.6.2001 in the Extraordinary Gazette of India No. 368 dated 2.6.2001 and was also published in the local newspapers as per the requirement of that Section for the notice and information of general public including the petitioner and that the Petitioner having not raised any objection pursuant to Section 3-A Notification, declaration of acquisition has been notified under Section 3-D of the Act and the land has absolutely vested in the Central Government and therefore as per Sub Section (4) of S. 3-D the Notification cannot be called in question in any Court of law or before any other authority and therefore the suit being not maintainable the process of acquisition cannot be halted by the Civil Court by issuance of an order of injunction. 6. The National Highways Act, 1956 is a special statute which authorizes the Central Government to acquire lands for building, maintenance, management and operation of National Highways for the purpose of road infrastructure development of the Country. 6. The National Highways Act, 1956 is a special statute which authorizes the Central Government to acquire lands for building, maintenance, management and operation of National Highways for the purpose of road infrastructure development of the Country. Sections 3-A, 3-C and 3-D of the Act which are relevant for our purpose are extracted hereunder :- "3-A. Power of 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. 3-C. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under Sub Section (1) of Section 3-A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that Sub Section. (2) Every objection under Sub Section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such' further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Sub Section, "legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in. clause (i) of Sub Section (1) of Section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961). (3) Any order made by the competent authority under Sub Section (2) shall be final. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Sub Section, "legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in. clause (i) of Sub Section (1) of Section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961). (3) Any order made by the competent authority under Sub Section (2) shall be final. 3-D. Declaration of acquisition.-(1) Where no objection under Sub Section (1) of Section 3-C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under Sub-Section (2) of that Section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Sub Section (1) of Section 3-A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under Sub Section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under Sub Section (1) of Section 3-A for its acquisition but no declaration under Sub Section (1) has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect: Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Sub Section (1) of Section 3-A is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded. (4) A declaration made by the Central Government under Sub Section (1) shall not be called in question in any Court or by any other authority." 7. The aforesaid provisions show that on the publication of notification of proposed acquisition in terms of Section 3-A of the Act, any person interested in the land may object to the proposed acquisition within the time specified in Section 3-C before the competent authority, who shall after giving opportunity of hearing to the objector and after making such further inquiry, if necessary, either allow or disallow tls1e objection. Under the provision of Sub Section (1) of S. 3-D, if no objection has been filed within the period specified U/s. 3-C or where objection having been raised, that has been disallowed by the competent authority a report accordingly be submitted to the Central Government whereafter the Government shall declare by notification in the Official Gazette that the land be acquired for the purpose. Sub Section (2) of S. 3-D provides that on publication of the declaration under Sub Section (1) lands stand vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Under Sub Section (4) of the said Section a declaration made under Sub Section (1) shall not be called in question in any Court or by any other authority. This, in other words, means that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider legality and propriety of a declaration under Sub Section (1) of S.3-D has been ousted. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the decisions reported in AIR 1940 Privy Council 105 (Secretary of State v. Mask & Co.); AIR 1975 Orissa 219 (Magulu Jal & Ors. v. Bhagaban Rai & Ors.); AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78 (Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.) contends that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a dispute of civil nature is not readily to be interfered and that where the jurisdiction is barred under any specified statute, it is always open to the Civil Court to go into the question and to decide whether the mandatory statutory requirements were followed by the authority or the special Tribunal and where the statutory requirements were not followed the Civil Court has jurisdiction to interfere. There is no dispute or quarrel over the legal proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 9. The Act does not require issuance of any individual notice to any person whose land is proposed to be acquired for raising any objection to such proposed acquisition, On the contrary, the statutory requirements are that the intention of the proposed acquisition shall be published in the Official Gazette as well as in two local newspapers, one of which must be in vernacular. Although a plea has been taken in the plaint by the Plaintiff that there was no publication of Section 3-A Notification in the newspaper, both the Courts below have on consideration of the materials come to the conclusion that the Notification under Section 3-A was published as per the requirements of the statute. During the course of hearing of the Writ petition, the Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties also brought to the notice of the Court two vernacular newspapers having wide circulation in the locality in which the notification was published. Considering the materials on record the Courts below have concurrently held that since there is a bar under Section 3-D (4) of the Act, the suit is prima facie not maintainable. In the matter of consideration of injunction application the Court is concerned to see whether the Petitioner has a prima facie case or not and therefore has jurisdiction to go into the question of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Though the Courts below have not given and also cannot give any definite finding with regard to non-maintainability of the suit because of the bar contained in Sub Section (4) of S.3-D, which is to be finally decided in the suit itself, the matter is necessarily to be gone into to find out prima facie case and both the Courts below have rightly found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff. The Court below has also taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1955; where the question with regard to the power of Civil Court to grant injunction in the matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act arose, it was held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction being barred it was not competent for it to issue an order of injunction. The said decision appropriately fits to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said decision appropriately fits to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In a recent decision a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19970 of 2010 (M/s. Narayani Motors Private Limited & Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. The National Highways Authority of India reported through its Chairman) decided on 3.12.2010 dealing with the question under the Act, observed as under : "At this stage to avail the statutory right under Section 3-C as pleaded by the Petitioner company cannot be granted as it would affect the public interest for the reason that by allowing the Petitioner to file objection statement the formation of the road work will be further delayed which would not be in larger interest of the public. When the case is of right of an individual versus public interest, individual right must yield to public interest. The Petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the Petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the impugned notification at this state for the reason that there is substantial compliance as required under Sub Section (3) of Section 3-A and enquiry is already over and report has been submitted to the Central Government for its consideration to exercise power and take further action issuing declaration notification 3-D of the N.H. Act. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to exercise its discretionary power to stall the widening of the proposed N.H. 203 which would affect the public interest. We do not find any good reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned notification and the Petitioner is not entitled to get a writ of mandamus to be issued to Opp. Parties to permit him to file objection statement The aforesaid observations fully apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and the public interest involved in the acquisition cannot be thwarted by issue of an order of interim injunction. 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Needless to say that while finally deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit in question the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court or by the District Judge in the FAO. 11. With the aforesaid observations the Writ Petition is dismissed.