ORDER Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.C. to Advocate General, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri S. N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 & 7/National Highways Authority of India. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a Government of India Notification dated 25-10-2010 i.e. Gazette of India (Extra-ordinary) [Annexure – ‘1’] under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), which was issued for the purposes of acquisition of land for construction of National Highway-83 in between Patna-Gaya-Dobhy section. Petitioners have further prayed for quashing of Notification dated 03-06-2011 i.e. Gazette of India (Extra-ordinary) [Annexure-‘3’], published under Section 3D of the Act. Besides this, petitioners have prayed for commanding the respondents not to acquire land of the petitioners for making a by-pass of National Highway-83 passing through Belaganj Market (Gaya). It has been claimed that alternative Government land is already available for the same purpose. 3. Short fact of the case is that a Notification under Section 3A of the Act was published and objections were invited. It has been pleaded that petitioners filed objection and final Notification under Section 3D of the Act was published. It was pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners that on false assertions, Notification under Section 3D was issued. According to learned counsel for the petitioners since there is some other government land already available, instead of acquiring agricultural land, the Government should have preferred to acquire government land for the purpose, as incorporated in the Notification. He submits that after acquisition of land in question, the petitioners will become landless and some petitioners may become homeless. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a recent Judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 792 (Raghubir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana and Others). Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically referred paragraph nos. 41, 42 & 43. For just decision in the matter, it is necessary to quote the same, which are as follows:– “41. State of Haryana and Others). Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically referred paragraph nos. 41, 42 & 43. For just decision in the matter, it is necessary to quote the same, which are as follows:– “41. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to observe that in recent past, various State Governments and their functionaries have adopted very casual approach in dealing with matters relating to the acquisition of land in general and the rural areas in particular and in a large number of cases, the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) with or without the aid of Section 17 and the consequential actions have been nullified by the courts on the ground of violation of the mandatory procedure and the rules of natural justice. The disposal of cases filed by the landowners and others take some time and the resultant delay has great adverse impact on implementation of the projects of public importance. Of course, the delay in deciding such cases may not be of much significance when the State and its agencies want to confer benefit upon private parties by acquiring land in the name of public purpose. 42. It is difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate as to why the State and its instrumentalities resort to massive acquisition of land and that too without complying with the mandate of the statute. As noted by the National Commission on Farmers, the acquisition of agricultural land in the name of planned development or industrial growth would seriously affect the availability of food in future. After independence, the administrative apparatus of the State has not spent enough investment in the rural areas and those who have been doing agriculture have not been educated and empowered to adopt alternative sources of livelihood. If land of such persons is acquired, not only the current but the future generations are ruined and this is one of the reasons why the farmers who are deprived of their holdings commit suicide. 43. It also appears that the authorities concerned are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit, etc. They do not realise that having one’s own house is a lifetime dream of a majority of the population of this country. 43. It also appears that the authorities concerned are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit, etc. They do not realise that having one’s own house is a lifetime dream of a majority of the population of this country. Economically affluent class of society can easily afford to have one or more houses at any place or locality in the country but other sections of the society find it extremely difficult to purchase land and construct house. Majority of the people spend their lifetime savings for building a small house so that their families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity. Therefore, it is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive such persons of their houses by way of the acquisition of land in the name of development of infrastructure or industrialisation. Similarly, some people set up small industrial units after seeking permission from the competent authority. They do so with the hope of generating additional income for their family. If the land on which small units are established is acquired, their hopes are shattered. Therefore, before acquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes. If the acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the authorities concerned must strictly comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice.” On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for quashing of both Gazette publications. 4. Sri S. N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 & 7/National Highways Authority of India as well as Sri Krishna Chandra, learned A.C. to Advocate General, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5/State of Bihar, have raised serious objection, particularly, on the point that similar issue was raised before a Division Bench of this Court, vide C.W.J.C. No. 515 of 2011. He has referred to Annexure-‘4’ to the petition, which is a photocopy of order dated 10-04-2012, whereby C.W.J.C. No. 515 of 2011 has been dismissed by the Division Bench. It was argued that once on this issue, a Division Bench has already decided and rejected the claim of some other persons, then in the similar circumstance, this Court may not entertain the present writ petition. It was argued that once on this issue, a Division Bench has already decided and rejected the claim of some other persons, then in the similar circumstance, this Court may not entertain the present writ petition. It has further been argued that alignment, which has already been prepared, may not be interfered with. In support of his argument, Sri S. N. Pathak, learned counsel for National Highways Authority of India has relied on a judgment of Apex Court, reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3210 (Union of India Vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty & Others). He has specifically referred paragraph 24 of the Judgment. It is relevant to quote paragraph 24, which is here-in-below:– “24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that 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. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. 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. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” Accordingly, it has been prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in limine. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for all the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that for the purpose of construction of National Highway-83, the Notification under Section 3A of the Act was issued. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” Accordingly, it has been prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in limine. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for all the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that for the purpose of construction of National Highway-83, the Notification under Section 3A of the Act was issued. It would be appropriate to quote Section 3A of the Act, which is as follows:– “3A. 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.” 6. On perusal of the provision contained in Section 3A of the Act, it is evident that for the public purpose, such notification is required to be issued. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that for interest of public, at large, Notification under Section 3A was issued for the purpose of construction of the National Highway. Once Notification under Section 3A of the Act is issued, aggrieved persons can be at liberty to file objection under Section 3C. Section 3C of the Act is quoted here-in-below:– “3C. 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 3A, 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.” 7. Section 3C of the Act prescribes that an objection can be filed only on the question of public purpose, not for any other purposes. Subsequently, after deciding objection, declaration under Section 3D is required to be issued. Once Notification under Section 3D is issued, dispute only in respect of compensation amount can be raised. Moreover, in the similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court has already rejected the plea of local residents in C.W.J.C. No. 515 of 2011. Accordingly, Notification contained in Annexures ‘1’ & ‘3’ may not be interfered with. So far as the prayer for change of alignment is concerned, it has already held that such matter may not be subject matter of judicial review, as emphasized by the Apex Court in Kushala Shetty’s case (supra). So far as judgment relied on behalf of petitioners i.e. Raghubir Singh Sehrawat’s case (supra) is concerned, the acquisition in that case was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 3J of the Act has made it clear that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to acquisition under this Act. Moreover, in view of facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly; the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has already repelled the contention of some of the residents of the same locality in respect of same dispute, this Court may not examine the issue afresh. 8. I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed.