Judgment : 1. First petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 24/1A2 renumbered as Sy. Nos. 24/1A2P1 measuring 64 cents. 24/1A2P2, measuring 72 cents and 24/1A2P3, measuring 86 cents. The said lands No.17 from 283/300 to 348/500 Kundapur to Suratkal Section to an extent of 60 mtrs. The preliminary notification was issued on 14-9-2009 as per Annexure-J and the final notification is issued on 2-7-2010 as per Annexure-K in respect of the acquisition of the aforementioned lands. The acquisition notifications are called in question in these writ petitions on the ground that the respondents have acquired the properties of the petitioners to an extent of more than 30 mtrs. on one side of the road from the centre of National Highway No.17 at Pandeshwara Village, Udupi Taluk and District. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the order at Annexures-G and H, both dated 7-1-2010 passed by the second respondent by which the statement of objections filed by the petitioners to the preliminary notification came to be dismissed. 2. Sri Shekar Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands in question are not dry lands, but are garden lands; that the lands are having coconut plantation since 30 years and the entire family members of the petitioners are dependent on the lands in question; certain lands such as Sy. Nos. 20/2B and 20/3B which are adjoining the petitioners’ properties are deleted presumably on the ground that such lands consist of petrol bunk, etc.; there is availability of vast area of Government lands, which could have been made use of by the respondents for the purpose in question; the petitioners are not heard in the matter personally as required under the provisions of Section 3-C of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and consequently, the rejection of statement of objections filed by the petitioners is unlawful. He further relied upon Annexure-R1 produced by the respondents along with the statement of objections to contend that the State Government has taken a decision to acquire the properties to an extent of 30 mtrs. from the central point of the road for the purpose of widening of National Highway in India; since the lands sought to be acquired are beyond 30 mtrs. from the central point of the road for the purpose of widening of National Highway in India; since the lands sought to be acquired are beyond 30 mtrs. from the centre of the road to another edge of the road, the acquisition of the lands beyond 30 mtrs., is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The writ petitions are opposed by the learned Counsel for respondent 2 by the filing statement of objections. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2 contends that the petitioners were not only given opportunity, but also notified and heard personally as required under Section 3-C of the Act; that the letter at Annexure-R1 does not in any way specify the maximum limit of 30 mtrs. for the purpose of widening the highway, but it is a minimum requirement. In the normal course, respondent 2 would not acquired beyond 30 mtrs. from the centre of the road for widening of the National Highway, but in the matter on hand, respondent 2 wants to set up Toll Plaza and two weigh bridges, etc., in the interest of the public and for safe transit of the vehicles. On these among other grounds, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. The records reveal that for the purpose of widening the National Highway No. 66 (formerly known as National Highway No. 17) from 283/300 to 348/500 (Kundapur-Suratkal Section), the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Act issued preliminary notification dated 14-9-1999. Thereafter wide publicity is given by publishing in ‘Times of India’ and ‘Vijaya Karnataka’ daily newspapers. The petitioners filed statement of objections to the preliminary notification. The petitioners have contended that their family is entirely depending on the properties in question and the properties are garden lands; that the respondents are entitled to acquire only to an extent of 30 mtrs. from the middle of the road and not beyond that. They have also stated in the statement of objections that adequate compensation needs to be granted in their favour. 5. The records maintained by the respondents clearly reveal that the petitioners were heard in the matter personally. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that they were not notified and that they were not heard under Section 3-C of the Act. 5. The records maintained by the respondents clearly reveal that the petitioners were heard in the matter personally. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that they were not notified and that they were not heard under Section 3-C of the Act. The spot inspection is also conducted by the respondents before issuing the final notification. The statement of objections filed by the petitioners to the preliminary notification came to be rejected by observing that the project is of the national importance and the road connects Kundapur on the northern side and Suratkal on the southern side, passing through Udupi District. The road also leads to Mangalore and Kerala forming an important link connecting northern districts of Karnataka and Kerala. It is also mentioned in the impugned orders at Annexures-J and H, that the project has been taken up after detailed survey, intensive field work and feasibility study. The project is also approved by the Government of India. The acquisition of land is question is in the public interest for widening national highway, maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 17 into six lane. It is further observed in the orders at Annexures-J and H that though the objector would be put to hardship, he will be compensated in accordance with law. When a greater public interest is involved, interest of individual needs to be rejected, and therefore the final notification came to be issued after following due procedure. 6. Annexure-L is the document which shows the list of Government lands. There is nothing in the said list to show that these Government lands are suitable for the purpose of project in question. Therefore, the petitioners’ contention that the Government lands should have been acquired, cannot be accepted. Absolutely no material is found to show as to where the Government lands are situated and as to whether the Government lands are abutting the National Highway or not. Merely because certain lands are deleted over which petrol bunk, etc., are situated, same cannot be a ground on basis to delete the petitioners’ property from the acquisition notifications. It is for the respondents to take action in accordance with law based on fact situation and depending on the suitability of the properties to be acquired. 7. Merely because certain lands are deleted over which petrol bunk, etc., are situated, same cannot be a ground on basis to delete the petitioners’ property from the acquisition notifications. It is for the respondents to take action in accordance with law based on fact situation and depending on the suitability of the properties to be acquired. 7. The statement of objections filed by the respondents reveals that existing National Highway No. 17 is not as per geometric design standard prescribed by the Indian Road Congress, hence, the DPR consultant has recommended for improvement of the geometry of the road for a design speed of 100 km. per hour. As per the detailed survey report of the DPR consultant and approved plan of the Central Government, the petitioners’ land along with the other neighbouring lands are acquired for construction of Toll Plaza and two numbers of Weigh Bridges i.e., one at left side and another at right side, including loading and unloading bay for overloaded vehicles at design chainage km. 300/400 to km. 300/800 in Pandeshwara Village of Udupi Taluk and District. The location identified and acquired is for construction of Toll Plaza and weigh bridges and to avoid leakage of traffic. Therefore, the petitioners’ property is acquired in excess of 30 mtrs. from the centre of the road. Hence, the arguments of the petitioners that only 30 mtrs. of the land is to be acquired from the middle of the road, etc., cannot be sustained. It is relevant to note that for protection of the property of the petitioners, the design of the National Highway No. 66 (formerly known as National Highway No. 17), cannot be altered, since the same would impact the geometric design standards of the project, which in turn will impact the regular movement on the National Highway. 8. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty and Others 1 2011(6) Kar. L.J. 177 (SC): AIR 2011 SC 3210 : (2011)12 SCC 69: 2011 AIR SCW 4460, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of Development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. It is also relevant to note that the afore cited judgment is also pertaining to the very project of widening of National Highway No. 17. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the acquisition notifications. Hence, writ petitions fail and accordingly, the same stand dismissed.