Judgment :- Dilip B. Bhosale J. 1. This bunch of writ appeals arises out of the common judgment and order dated 17.10.11 rendered by learned Single Judge in a group of writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging preliminary as well as final notifications issued under sections 3A (1) & 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the NH Act"). The writ petitions along with the corresponding writ appeals, arising from the common judgment dated 17.10.2011 are W.A. No.260/12 & W.A.Nos.451-460/13 in W.P. NOs.41809- 819/2010; W.A.Nos.330/12 & 4732-51/12 in W.P.Nos.9110/11 & 9493-9512/11; W.A.Nos.331/12 & 648-773/13 in W.P.Nos.11377-11458/11 & 11460-11491/11, 11493-11498/11, 11500, 11501, 11504-11507/12; W.A. Nos.336-363/12 in W.P.Nos.27610-27627/10 & 28088-28097/10. 1.1 After disposing of the aforementioned group of writ petitions, the remaining groups of writ petitions were disposed of by different orders dated 16.1.12, 13.1.12, 21.3.12 and 24.5.2012, following the common judgment and order dated 17.10.2011. As common questions of law are involved in all the appeals and the background facts are identical, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to these appeals, to appreciate the controversy and the rival stands thereon, are as follows. The appellants are owners and in possession of lands that are subject matter of the acquisition (for short "the lands") under the provisions of the NH Act, situate at different villages in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi Districts. The lands are abutted to the existing National Highway No.17. About 3-4 decades ago, the appellants claim that their lands were acquired for building the existing NH - 17 of about 45 mts. width. 2.1 The Central Government in exercise of the powers vested in it under section 3A (1) of the NH Act issued notifications on different dates (i.e., 29.10.2009, 18.12.2009, 8.2.2010 & 26.2.2010), in respect of different stretch of lands, involving the lands of the appellants, for widening of the existing NH 17 to the extent of 60 mts. from Kundapur -Suratkal (Km.283-300 to Km.358-080) and from Nantoor -Talapady (Km.375.300 to 376.600 and Km.3.700 to 17.200). The notifications under sections 3A(1) were published in daily newspapers. The notifications contained names of the concerned villages, survey numbers including its particular parcel number, nature, type and area of land proposed to be acquired. from Kundapur -Suratkal (Km.283-300 to Km.358-080) and from Nantoor -Talapady (Km.375.300 to 376.600 and Km.3.700 to 17.200). The notifications under sections 3A(1) were published in daily newspapers. The notifications contained names of the concerned villages, survey numbers including its particular parcel number, nature, type and area of land proposed to be acquired. In the notification it was clearly mentioned that the land plans and other details of the lands are available and can be inspected at the office of the competent authority. It was also mentioned that any person interested in the lands may file objections before the competent authority within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. Simultaneously, as stated above the substance of the notification was published in daily newspapers. 3. We are not mentioning the relevant dates, connecting each of the appeals, of the notifications under section 3A and 3D; dates of their publication in official gazettes; name of the news papers; and the dates of their publication therein etc. since they are not in dispute or have any bearing on the questions / points raised for our consideration in these appeals. 4. In response to the notifications under section 3A, a number of land owners / appellants filed objections. Majority of the appellants, who filed objections, in their objections, stated that after the acquisition his / her remaining land will become useless and that he / she will render landless or will lose their only source of livelihood. The sum and substance of the objections raised by most of the land owners / appellants, as mentioned in the writ petitions is as follows: a) The portion of NH-17 is a thickly populated area consisting of residential houses, commercial complex, educational institutions, ancient temples and mosques, shops/commercial premises of petty businessmen, etc. b) The people who are residing/cultivators along the proposed highway are inclusive of backward classes and poor persons, who completely depend on agricultural operation for their livelihood and most of the people including the petitioners are small land holders and petty farmers and that they would render landless. c) Most of the people in these areas have already sacrificed enough land about 3 decades ago for the purpose of making the said NH-17 into double road. c) Most of the people in these areas have already sacrificed enough land about 3 decades ago for the purpose of making the said NH-17 into double road. d) Infact there is absolutely no developmental works for the last more than 35 years even after acquiring lands from the people of these areas. e) The proposed width of the lane is excessive and in a lesser area, 6 lane road can be formed. Infact, the National Highway authorities have acquired lands for the purpose of widening NH-17 road in the State of Kerala only to an extent of 45 Mts., to form 6 lane National Highway. When this being the case, the respondent authorities are proposing to acquire the land of 60 Mts., for the purpose of widening/forming National Highway No.17. As the proposed 60 Mts., width is far excessive than the required 40-45 Mts., of land, the further acquisition would give scope for unhealthy real-estate activities. 4.1 None of the objectors/appellants made a grievance that there was any deficiency or defect in the description of land given in the notifications under Section 3A and, on that account, he/she was prevented from effectively exercising his / her right to file objections. Moreover, they did not, either in their in objections, or in the writ petition, pleaded that the acquisition proceedings are ultra vires the provisions of the NH Act and are vitiated due to malafides and arbitrary exercise of power. 5. The appellants, in their petitions, have suggested to form an alternative / separate express highway running along the Konkan Railway line. Further, different suggestions are made so as to save their lands, shops, commercial complexes, residential buildings, temples, etc. from the proposed acquisition. They also made representations to different authorities, including Chief Minister explaining the hardship that will be caused to the appellants and similarly place persons due to acquisition of the lands as proposed vide Notifications under section 3A of the NH Act. It was also contended that as per the norms published in Indian Road Congress, the maximum extent of land required for forming four lane road is 23.5 mts. and for six lane highway, 43.6 - 45 mts. with all utilities including service road on both sides. 5. It was also contended that as per the norms published in Indian Road Congress, the maximum extent of land required for forming four lane road is 23.5 mts. and for six lane highway, 43.6 - 45 mts. with all utilities including service road on both sides. 5. 1 The appellants also placed heavy reliance upon the letter dated 18.5.10 written on behalf of the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, addressed to the respondents, in particular, the Chief General Manager (T), NH Authority of India (for short "NHAI"), whereby the decision and the desire of the Chief Minister was conveyed by the Under Secretary, Public Works Port and Inland Water Transport Department (Communication), Government of Karnataka to confine width of the NH – 17 to 45 mts. 6. So far as hearing on the objections as contemplated by section 3C of the NH Act is concerned, some of the appellants contend that they were not given an opportunity/proper opportunity of being heard and that the order / decision of the competent authority, disallowing their objections, was not furnished to them and on this count also the final notifications under section 3D deserve to be quashed and set aside, being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 7. It is in this backdrop, the appellants challenged the preliminary notifications issued under Section 3A(1) and final Notifications under Section 3D of the NH Act. 8. Respondent No.1-Union of India, Minister of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways represented by its Project Director, NH Authority of India, Project implementation Unit, Mangalore, filed statement of objections in the writ petitions. It is the case of the respondents that land plans and other details of the lands proposed to be acquired were available in the office of the competent authority for inspection and that the objections filed by the land owners were considered and rejected by the competent authority after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. In the statement of objections, it is urged that width of NH 17 has been fixed at 60 mts. Under NH development program, which the State Government has also accepted/consented for the proposed width between Kundapur - Suratkal and Nantoor – Talapady section. The width of 60 mts has been recommended in view of the high volume of traffic between Mangalore and Kundapur and beyond,and so also keeping in view the future need. Under NH development program, which the State Government has also accepted/consented for the proposed width between Kundapur - Suratkal and Nantoor – Talapady section. The width of 60 mts has been recommended in view of the high volume of traffic between Mangalore and Kundapur and beyond,and so also keeping in view the future need. It is further contended that the prayer of the appellants/petitioners to confine the width of NH 17 to 45 mts. is contrary to the policy of National Highway Development. 9. The respondents state that they are statutory authority known as National Highway Authority of India (for short `NHAI), constituted under the Act No.68 of 1988 of Parliament, viz. National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988. The main object for which this authority is constituted, as contended in the statement of objections, is the development and maintenance of the national highways entrusted to it. It is stated that, it is a professionally managed statutory body having high degree of expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements its plans after thorough study by experts in the field and strictly adheres to the professional standards of high order. The proposed road widening according to the respondents, was mainly influenced by the matter of utilization of existing right of way and that localized shifting is not feasible, as this would affect the stipulated design standards as per theIndian Roads Congress code for the project. It is contended that, the project in question has been designed based on the detailed studies done by the Project Report consultant, keeping in view the various relevant factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and public interest at large. Hence, the allegations made in the petitions and the suggestions made therein for re-aligning the national highway at certain spots / points so as to save the lands of the appellants are baseless and unfounded and uncalled for apart from the fact that they are impracticable and against the decision taken by the experts in the field. As per the approved alignment, a portion of the petitioners' property along with some other properties is required for widening the road to the extent of 60 mts. They have further stated that the land acquisition is for public purpose viz. As per the approved alignment, a portion of the petitioners' property along with some other properties is required for widening the road to the extent of 60 mts. They have further stated that the land acquisition is for public purpose viz. for forming of 4 / 6 laning (for widening of the existing NH 17 to the extent of 60 mts.) and hence writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9.1 They also brought on record by way of statement of objections that the stretch of road (NH - 17) from 84 Mangalore to Suratkal (i.e., KM 358.080 - KM 375.300) has already been completed under the new Mangalore Port connectivity Project. According to the respondents, NH17 is a lifeline of coastal India. Further, according to them, the existing traffic and future traffic growth on NH-17 necessitates further expansion. The acquisition of land and shifting of the people again and again being cumbersome and tedious, they state, the Government of India decided to acquire minimum 60 mts. of right of way vide order dated 22.12.03 bearing order No.RW/NH- 24036/13/2003-PIC. They have further stated that the project alignment, alignment plan and estimate has been scrutinized and approved by the competent authority of National Highway of India, New Delhi. They assert that 60 mts. width is absolutely required for four lane carriage way as mentioned below: "(a) Main Carriage way (with paved shoulders) - 17.5m (b) Central Median - 4.5m (c) Earthen Shoulder (LHS and RHS) - 2.0m (d) Service Roads - (LHS and RHS) (6.0 X 2 sides) - 12.0m (e) Divider between main carriage way and Service roads (Both sides) - 4.0m (f) Footpath with drain (2x2.3m) - 4.6m (g) Utility corridor (LHS and RHS) (2X4.0m) - 8.0m (h) Remaining 7.4M is required for future expansion, Geometric improvement, in order to provide safe sight distance, wherever necessary for Bus bays, construction of bus shelter and for distrod plantation as per Hon'ble High Court directions." 10. Insofar as the grievance made by the appellants in the writ petitions that no opportunity of being heard was given to the appellants or the persons interested, the respondents in their statement of objections have clearly stated that the objections raised by the appellants and all other interested persons were not only considered but they were given opportunity of being heard before issuing the Notification under Section 3D of the Act. They specifically stated that the final Notification was issued after hearing / considering and taking note of the objections raised by each of the objectors, either in 86 person or through Advocates. Their objections were rejected keeping in view the requirements "for" the next 30 years. 11. The learned single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions by common order dated 17.10.2011 and the orders following the common order in subsequent petitions. He held that objections filed by the petitioners were rejected by the competent authority after giving them opportunity of hearing and the mere fact that they are likely to suffer from hardship due to acquisition of their lands cannot be a ground for setting aside the notifications under section 3D of the NH Act. The learned Judge after referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court, in short, held that this Court cannot sit over the Judgments of the authorities entrusted with the task of planning and executing the project relating to widening of the NH-17. The learned Judge further held that the High Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of any particular project and whether such project sub-serve the larger public interest, and that in such matters the scope of judicial review is very limited. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The questions raised in the course of arguments are centered around sections 3A, 3C and 3D of the Act. It would be relevant to re-produce these sections, which read thus: "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 88 published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language. 3C. (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 88 published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language. 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 the 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. 3D. Declaration of acquisition - (1) where no objection under sub-section(1) of Section 3C 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 89 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 3A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (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 3A 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 3A 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." 12.1 The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that once the Central Government is satisfied that any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, then, it shall declare its intention to acquire such land by issuing a notification in the official Gazette giving brief description of the land. The substance of the notification is also required to be published in two local newspapers of which one has to be in a vernacular language. Any person interested in the land can file objection within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Such objection is required to be made to the Competent Authority in writing. Thereafter, the Competent Authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of hearing either in person or through a legal practitioner. This exercise is to be followed by an order of the Competent Authority either allowing or rejecting the objections. Where no objection is made to the Competent Authority in terms of Section 3C(1) or where the objections made by the interested persons have been disallowed, the Competent Authority is required to submit a report to the Central Government, which shall then issue a notification in the official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3A(1). On publication of declaration under Section 3D (1), the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. On publication of declaration under Section 3D (1), the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of Section 3D provides that where no declaration under sub-section (1) is published within a period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 3A(1), the said notification shall cease to have any effect. By virtue of proviso to Section 3D(3), the period during which any action or proceeding taken in pursuance of notification issued under Section 3A(1) remains stayed by a Court shall be excluded while computing the period of one year specified in Section 3D(3). ( See UNION OF INDIA -vs- KUSHALA SHETTY - AIR 2011 SC 3210 ). 13. It is against this backdrop, at the outset, we would like to consider and deal with the first ground of challenge urged by Smt. Nalini Chidambaram – learned senior counsel, who advanced leading arguments, on behalf of the appellants in this group of writ appeals that the competent authority's decision/order passed under section 3C(2) was not furnished to the appellants. That apart, she submitted, even some of the appellants were not given an opportunity of being heard as contemplated by this provision, and that those who filed objections, their objections were not considered in proper perspective. She submitted, unlike section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under section 4 of the said Act, section 3C(1) of the Act gives very limited right to object and that the order passed by the competent authority being final in nature, consideration of objections after giving an opportunity of being heard is not an empty formality and the competent Authority was required to objectively consider the objections filed by the land owners and decide the same by speaking order, dealing with all objections. In other words, the orders rejecting the objections were assailed on the ground that competent Authority had not recorded cogent reasons for refusing to entertain their plea that the proposed widening of NH17 beyond 45 mts. is not necessary and the acquisition is not for the use of the lands for the purpose contemplated under Section 3A. In other words, the orders rejecting the objections were assailed on the ground that competent Authority had not recorded cogent reasons for refusing to entertain their plea that the proposed widening of NH17 beyond 45 mts. is not necessary and the acquisition is not for the use of the lands for the purpose contemplated under Section 3A. She further submitted that it is binding on the competent authority to communicate its order / decision taken in terms of section 3C (2) so as to enable them, if the decision is adverse, to challenge the same by way of writ petition since no appeal is provided under the Act. In short, she submitted that communication of the decision/order made by the competent authority in terms of section 3C(2) is mandatory in nature and that it was not done in case of few land owners, in particular, one Ashok Raj the petition W.P.No.13929/2011 to whom our attention was specifically invited to. She also invited our attention to the averments in his writ petition stating that the order/decision of the competent authority was not furnished to him. 14. Having regard to the scheme of acquisition enshrined in the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that the competent authority is required to give the objectors an opportunity of hearing either in person or through legal practitioner and this exercise requires to be followed by an order of competent authority either allowing or rejecting the objections. In the present case, the respondents in their statement of objections clearly stated that after receiving the objections, the objectors were heard in person and /or through legal practitioners. It is their case that even the decision / orders of the competent authority, disallowing their objections, under section 3C(2) of the Act were also furnished/served on all the objectors and the acknowledgments were also obtained. In the course of hearing of the appeals, our attention was invited to the acknowledgments of the service of decision/orders on the objectors including Ashok Raj. However, on his behalf it was submitted that the order which was subsequently shown is stereotype and it does not demonstrate that the objections raised by Ashok Raj were considered by the competent authority objectively. 15. However, on his behalf it was submitted that the order which was subsequently shown is stereotype and it does not demonstrate that the objections raised by Ashok Raj were considered by the competent authority objectively. 15. It is true that unlike section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act which confers a general right to object acquisition of land under section 4 thereof, section 3C (1) of the NH Act gives a very limited right to object. It further appears from the contents of section 3C(2) that the competent authority is the authority which is empowered to pass an order, either allowing or disallowing the objections and the decision taken by it under subsection (2) shall be final as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 3C of the NH Act, unlike the provisions contained in section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, it is not necessary for the competent authority to forward its report to the Central Government for taking final decision. It is mandatory for the Central Government, as contemplated by section 3D, to declare by notification in the official gazette that the land shall be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A. On receipt of the report submitted by the competent authority, disallowing the objections, and once the declaration under Section 3D is published, the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In short it is clear that the decision of the competent authority either allowing or disallowing the objection shall be final and therefore, hearing of the objections cannot be stated to be an empty formality. There has to be effective and objective consideration of the objections. 16. In the present case we have perused few orders issued by the competent authority disallowing the objections. It would be relevant to re-produce the decision/order of the Competent Authority and Asst. Commissioner, Kundapur Sub-Division, Kundapur in case of one of the appellants to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that there was no application of mind by the competent authority while disallowing the objections and that the competent authority passed the orders under section 3C(2) of the Act just to comply the formality of hearing. Commissioner, Kundapur Sub-Division, Kundapur in case of one of the appellants to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that there was no application of mind by the competent authority while disallowing the objections and that the competent authority passed the orders under section 3C(2) of the Act just to comply the formality of hearing. The decision in case of Ashok Raj reads thus: In the court of Competent Authority and Assistant Commissioner Kundapur Sub Division Kundapur Case No:-LAQ 1NH17 Tenka 4/10-11 Dated: 17-7-2010 Objector Name: Shri Ashok Raj, BSC, LLB, Yermal Beedu, Yermalu Post 574119, Udupi Taluk Requesting Department: National Highway Authority of India Mangalore Sub: Land Acquisition for 4/6 laning in N.H.17 from Km.283/300 to 348/500 (Kundapura Surathkal Section) - Order under Section 3-C (2) for the village Tenka S.No. 9/4B, 11/9B, 11/10, 11/11B. 11/12B, 155/2B, 156/2B Ref: 1) Notification under section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 No.S.O.2720(E) Dated 29-10-2009, published in the Gazette of India on 26- 02-2010 2) Notification published in Times of India (In English) & Vijaya Karnataka (In Kannada) Dated 24-04-2010. 3) Objection filed by Shri Ashok Raj on 5-5-2010. Brief description of the objections -Only 45 mtrs should be acquired. 60 mtrs at rural area is not necessary. So only 45 mtrs should be acquired. Towards Mangalore left side i.e from Muloor maszid to Hermal kalsank acquiring is not correct. It should be both side equal. If 60 mtrs both side equally 30-30mtrs should be acquired. Request to save the Basadi. Compensation should be paid at the present market rate. In this case, a notice was issued to him on 7- 7-2010 and served on 15-7-2010. The objector/agent appeared in this court on 17-7-2010. The enquiry was completed on 17-7-2010. Preliminary 3A Notification for the widening the N.H.17 into 4/6 lane for the village Tenka was published in the Central Gazette on 26-02-2010, and in English & Kannada Newspapers on 24-04-2010. The Kundapur -Surathkal Section of N.H.17 widening/up gradation is an important road development project for this region. The project stretch connects Kundapur on the northern side and Surathkal on the southern side, passing through Udupi District. This road leads to Mangalore and Kerala, forming an important link connecting Northern Districts of Karnataka and Kerala. This project is of national importance, and it has been taken up after a detailed survey, intensive field work and feasibility study. The project stretch connects Kundapur on the northern side and Surathkal on the southern side, passing through Udupi District. This road leads to Mangalore and Kerala, forming an important link connecting Northern Districts of Karnataka and Kerala. This project is of national importance, and it has been taken up after a detailed survey, intensive field work and feasibility study. Land Acquisition for National Highways is to be done for 60 meters as per letter No. RW/NH-24-03-2006/13/2003-PIC, Dated 22-12-2003. The project is also approved by the Government of India. This Land Acquisition is in the public interest, for widening/four laning etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.17 and 4/6 lane. The objections filed by the objector has been examined, they are individual in nature. It is true that the objector will be put to hardship, but he will be compensated in accordance with law when a greater public interest in involved, individual objections needs to be rejected. Width & Alignment of road is decided by NHAI. Suitable compensation will be paid after award enquiry. Order under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. In view of the above mentioned points, the objection petition filed on 5-5-2010 has been rejected. This Order has been pronounced in the open Court on 17-7-2010. Sd/- Sd/- Manager Competent Authority, N.H.17, Office of the & Assistant Commissioner Sub-Divisional Officer Kundapura Kundapura Tq Udupi District Copy to the concerned Reverse page of the order reads thus: Sd/-(Padmalatha) Wife The person to whom notice is issued -Shri Ashok Raj, as was not present in his house, notice has been served to his wife. Sd/- Certified copy (XXX) Sd/- Manager Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer Kundapura Tq Udupi District" 16.1 The appellant - Ashok Raj, being the first appellant in W.A. NO.902-954/12 and 5197/12 in W.P. Nos.13929-14007/11, had filed objections on 4.5.2010. He is a law graduate. Our attention was invited to his objections to contend that the objections as reflected in paragraphs 2 & 4 thereof were not considered by the competent authority objectively. In paragraph 2 of the objections dated 4.5.2010, it was stated that "the survey sketch shows 40 mts. road was reserved earlier in 1968 by issuing notification for NH and that has been completely neglected at certain spots / points in the present survey sketch and the area more than 40 mts. at few spots / points and 60 mts. In paragraph 2 of the objections dated 4.5.2010, it was stated that "the survey sketch shows 40 mts. road was reserved earlier in 1968 by issuing notification for NH and that has been completely neglected at certain spots / points in the present survey sketch and the area more than 40 mts. at few spots / points and 60 mts. and at certain spots / points it is shown separately in a single direction of the road". Similarly, in paragraph 4 in short he stated that the competent authority has aligned NH- 17 so as to save the compound of Masjid surrounded by stone marks. It is stated that only to avoid acquisition of the compound wall of the Masjid, they have aligned the NH - 17 resulting in acquisition of his (Ashok Raj) land. 16.2 From the order pronounced by the competent authority in the open Court on 17.7.2010 we find that the objection regarding the Masjid was considered by the competent authority and even the objection reflected in paragraph 2 stands answered. It is stated in the order that the project has been approved by the Government of India and acquisition of the land for widening of NH -17 to the extent of 60 mts. is in the public interest. The order further records that the acquisition would definitely cause hardship to the appellant, but for that he can be compensated in terms of monies in accordance with law. Thus, the other objections also stand answered. It cannot be stated that there was no application of mind. The objectors in their objections or even in the petitions or before us could not and did not point out as why the lands are either not suitable for the use as contemplated by Section 3A or the acquisition is not for the use of widening / building of the NH-17. The whole emphasis, in the objections, is on the alignment of National Highway, which, as observed earlier, is the decision of experts in the field and that their decision cannot be and need not be examined in the absence of any allegations of malafides. 17. It may be true that the competent authority has not dealt with the objections in the manner in which the Courts do. The competent authority cannot be expected to pass an order crafted like a judicial order, which is passed by legally trained mind, viz. 17. It may be true that the competent authority has not dealt with the objections in the manner in which the Courts do. The competent authority cannot be expected to pass an order crafted like a judicial order, which is passed by legally trained mind, viz. a Judge. (See KUSHALA SHETTY). Rejection of the objections, in the present case, therefore, cannot be faulted only on that ground. It is clear from the record and we are satisfied that the competent authority had invited objections, received the objections and after considering and dealing with the same, issued the order as contemplated by section 3C (2) of the Act disallowing the objections and also furnished copies of the orders to all the objectors. 18. Even the contention urged by Mrs. Chidambaram that the order / decision of the competent authority, in case of Ashok Raj, was not furnished to him, also deserves to be rejected outright. Though the appellant-Ashok Raj has so stated in the writ petition, from a photo copy of the decision / order placed on record for our perusal, by learned counsel for the respondents, clearly shows the original endorsement, for having received the order, is made by the wife of Ashok Raj. In the Court, Mrs. Chidambaram, on instructions denied service of the order / decision even on his wife and her signature. We, however, do not find any reason to reject the claim of the respondents that it was served on the wife of Ashok Raj. The record placed before us for our perusal, is maintained in the ordinary course of business. 19. We have perused the entire record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. NH - 17 was built after acquiring the lands in 1968 itself. The present acquisition is only for widening the existing NH 17 and not for constructing/building new National Highway. The allegation that alignment of NH at the particular spot was with a view to save the Masjid or its wall, therefore, in our opinion, deserves to be rejected outright. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also placed before us, for our perusal the acknowledgments of service of the orders passed under section 3C(2) of the Act upon the other objectors/appellants. We do not find any reason whatsoever to doubt the record which is maintained in the ordinary course of business. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also placed before us, for our perusal the acknowledgments of service of the orders passed under section 3C(2) of the Act upon the other objectors/appellants. We do not find any reason whatsoever to doubt the record which is maintained in the ordinary course of business. Thus the contentions urged by learned senior counsel for the appellant deserve to be rejected not only on the questions of law but also on facts of the case. 20. The mere fact that the appellants would suffer hardship due to the acquisition, in our opinion, cannot be a ground for quashing and setting aside the notifications issued under section 3D of the Act. The competent authority in the order / decision itself has stated that the acquisition will put the objectors / appellants to hardship but they will be compensated in accordance with law. It is further observed in the order that when a greater public interest is involved, hardship to the individuals cannot be a ground for quashing the impugned notification. We are in agreement with the competent authority that the hardship cannot be a ground for quashing the impugned notification as against the interest of the people at large. Acquisition, whether it is under the Land Acquisition Act or under any other enactment, bound to cause hardship to land owners whose lands are subject matter of acquisition, and if the notifications acquiring lands are set aside on this ground, perhaps the acquisition would not only be difficult but it would be impossible. 21. The next ground of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that as per the six laning policy and four laning policy, width of the road required is only 45 mts. and therefore, acquisition for widening the NH -17 to the extent of 60 mts. Is unnecessary and as such the acquisition cannot be stated to be for the use of land as contemplated by section 3A of the Act. It was further submitted that even the facts and figures mentioned in the statement of objections are taken as correct, what is required is only 52.6 mts. land for four / six laning national highway. Acquisition of land for widening the road to the extent of 60 mts. is therefore, unnecessary and can be avoided. It was further contended that 60 mts. land for four / six laning national highway. Acquisition of land for widening the road to the extent of 60 mts. is therefore, unnecessary and can be avoided. It was further contended that 60 mts. of width perhaps would be required "after" 30 years and therefore, at this juncture it cannot be stated that the acquisition of excess land is for the use of national highway as contemplated by section 3C of the Act. In support of this contention, our attention was invited to the Manual of Specifications and Standards for Six Laning of National Highways through Public Private Partnership. The Manual, according to learned counsel for the appellants, which was prepared by Indian Road Congress(for short `IRC') as a consultancy assignment given by Planning Commission has been completely overlooked by the competent authority before issuing final notification under section 3D. It was then submitted that the objections raised by the appellants clearly demonstrate that alignment as suggested by them (the appellants) would save many dwelling units, factories, buildings, commercial complexes, private gardens, etc. 22. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in different appeals submitted that the objection can be only to the use of land for the purpose other than those under section 3A(1). They submitted that the Act does not permit to raise an objection to acquisition unless it is stated to be not for the use of the land for the purpose mentioned in sub-section(1) of Section 3A. In the present case the appellants have not objected to the project / development but their objections are only with respect to alignment of the highway so as to avoid acquisition of their lands including the structures standing thereon. It was further submitted that the acquisition in the present case was for the project of great national importance, i.e. the construction of a national highway. National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of national highways. The Courts, therefore, they submitted, are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of a particular project or whether the particular alignment would sub-serve the larger public interest. 23. In this connection, before we deal with the submissions, it would be relevant to refer to the Judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contentions. 23. In this connection, before we deal with the submissions, it would be relevant to refer to the Judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contentions. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, did not rely on any Judgment either of High Courts or of the Supreme Court. 23.1 The Supreme Court in KUSHALA SHETTY had an occasion to deal with challenge to the acquisition for widening of the very same National Highway i.e. NH 17 in the State of Karnataka and also the notifications issued under section 3A(1), 3C(2) and 3D of the Act. The acquisition in those proceedings was in respect of the lands in 18 villages of the Mangalore Taluk in the State of Karnataka for widening of NH 17 from Km. 358/000 to Km. 375/300; National Highway No. 48 from Km. 328/000 to 345/000 and National Highway No.13 from Km. 743/900 to Km. 745/000. The objection insofar as an opportunity of being heard is concerned, as contemplated under section 3C(2) of the Act, in the case before the Supreme Court and in the present case, is similar. The Supreme Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and so also the contentions urged on behalf of the land owners in paragraphs 20, 21 & 24 observed thus: "20. The only reason assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court for upsetting the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge negating the respondents' challenge to the acquisition was that declaration under Section 3D(1) was published even before communication of the decision taken by the Competent Authority in terms of Section 3C(2). The process of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench for recording its conclusion appears to have been influenced by an assumption that the objections filed by the land owners had not been decided till the issue of declaration under Section 3D(1). However, the fact of the matter is that the Competent Authority had, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the objectors, passed order dated 11.10.2005 and rejected the objections. Though, that order was not crafted like a judicial order which is passed by a legally trained mind, the rejection of the representations made by the respondents cannot be faulted only on that ground. Though, that order was not crafted like a judicial order which is passed by a legally trained mind, the rejection of the representations made by the respondents cannot be faulted only on that ground. The Competent Authority did advert to the substance of objections, the details of which have been incorporated in Annexure P-3 filed before this Court. The concerned officer rejected the same by observing that the land proposed for acquisition is necessary for widening the existing National Highways into four lanes. If the consideration made by the Competent Authority is judged in the backdrop of the fact that a Special Purpose Vehicle was incorporated with the name New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited for implementation of the project known as New Mangalore Port Road Connectivity Project from Surathkal to Nantoor and B.C.Road to Padil along with bypass from Nantoor to Padil, it is not possible to castigate the proved reasons recorded by the Competent Authority for rejecting the objections. 21. The plea of the respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of National Highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the National Highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the appellants are tainted by mala fides. "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. 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". (emphasis supplied) 23.2 In COMPETENT AUTHORITY vs. BARANGAORE JUTE FACTORY & ORS. - (2005) 13 SCC 477 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the challenge to the acquisition under the provisions of the Act in paragraph 8, observed thus: "........We would however, like to add that unlike Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under Section 3-A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. This answers the argument advanced by the learned counsel for NHAI that failure to file objections disentitles the writ petitioners to object to the acquisition. The Act confers no general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban. In our view, this judgment has no application in the facts of the present case where the right to object is a very limited right. The Act confers no general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban. In our view, this judgment has no application in the facts of the present case where the right to object is a very limited right. The case cited is a case under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 5-A. Failure to exercise that right could be said to be acquiescence. The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object to acquisition of land except on the question of its user." (emphasis supplied) 23.3 In SUBHASHGIR KUSHALGIR GOSAVI vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERS AND ORS. - AIR 1996 SC 3169 the Supreme Court was dealing with the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Though the provisions of the NH Act were not under consideration, it would be relevant to notice the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 3 of the Judgment which in our opinion would squarely apply even to the acquisition under the provisions of the Act. Paragraph 3 reads thus: "The only question is: Whether the impugned notification is bad in law? Extension of the bus stand obviously is a public purpose and, therefore, it per se cannot be said to be bad in law. It is true as pointed out by the Collector and the representation dated August 8, 1986 made in that behalf by some people that there is congestion and acquisition is not in public interest. But it is for the Government to take a decision and it is not for the Court to decide as to which place is more convenient. Since the Government have taken a decision that acquiring the land for extension of the bus stand and bus depot is in the public interest, it cannot be said that the exercise of the power is arbitrary." (emphasis supplied) 23.4 In H.N. NANJE GOWDA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA -ILR 1996 KAR. 1649 the Division Bench consisting of S. RAJENDRA BABU and R.V. RAVEENDRAN JJ. 1649 the Division Bench consisting of S. RAJENDRA BABU and R.V. RAVEENDRAN JJ. as their Lordships then were, dealing with the notifications issued under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, in paragraph 8 observed thus: "We shall now take up the next contention that whether the said airport could have been located south of Devanahalli. As stated earlier, Ramanathan Committee was entrusted with the purpose of locating the airport in any of the areas close to Bangalore City. The committee considered six points of location and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that Devanahalli South was the best suited for the purpose. Therefore, when the committee is constituted consisting of experts in the field and they examine the matter and recommend - to the concerned authorities that a particular place would be best suited for the purpose, we do not think we can re-examine the matter and substitute our opinion. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that there is no application of mind in this regard does not have any force." (emphasis supplied) 23.5 In STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. vs. GURDIAL SINGH & ORS- (1980)2 SCC 471 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in paragraph 8 observed thus: "First, what are the facts? A grain market was the public purpose for which government wanted land to be acquired. Perfectly valid. Which land was to be taken? This power to select is left to the responsible discretion of government under the Act, subject to Articles 14, 19 and 31 (then). The court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raise its hand against what it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in administrative action is the property of the executive and judicial circumspection keeps the court lock-jawed save where power has been polluted by oblique ends or is otherwise void on well established grounds. The constitutional balance cannot be upset." (emphasis supplied) 23.6 In STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER v. JAIPAL SINGH & ORS. AIR 1997 SC 452 , in paragraphs 5 & 7 the Supreme Court observed thus: "5. We have repeatedly held in several judgments that there is no general policy as such that all the lands on which construction has come to be made are required to be deleted from the acquisition. 7. AIR 1997 SC 452 , in paragraphs 5 & 7 the Supreme Court observed thus: "5. We have repeatedly held in several judgments that there is no general policy as such that all the lands on which construction has come to be made are required to be deleted from the acquisition. 7. ................If the shops were constructed prior to the publication of the impugned notification under Section 4(1), necessarily compensation has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In case the construction came to be made after the notification under Section 4(1), necessarily they cannot claim any compensation". (emphasis supplied) 24. Keeping the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in view, we would now like to examine the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that acquisition of land for widening the road to the extent of 60 mts. is unnecessary and therefore, acquisition of anything above 45 mts. is not for the use of the land for the purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A of the NH Act. 25. The NH Act was enacted by the parliament to provide for declaration of certain highways as national highways and for matters connected therewith. This was as a part of a mission undertaken by Govt. of India for improvement of road infrastructure in the country. An ambitious National Highway Development Project has been taken up into seven phases where about 26,000 Kms. length of National Highway was decided to be up-graded to 4-lane divided carriageway facility and 6,500 Km. of National Highways was decided to be up-graded to 6 lane facilities. 20,000 Kms. of existing deficient stretches were decided to be improved to two lane with paved shoulder facility, construction of 1000 Kms. of expressways and construction of bypasses, ring roads, flyovers, etc. at major intersections, etc. It was decided to implement all these phases through Public Private Partnership for attracting private capital, improving efficiencies and optimizing the cost. 25.1 The Government of India is committed for providing road infrastructure comparable to the world standards. Accountability for providing safe and reliable road network rests with the Government. While implementing the decision for improvement of road infrastructure in the country, the Government focused its attention to amenities to the users so that they get value for their money on the developed National Highways. Accountability for providing safe and reliable road network rests with the Government. While implementing the decision for improvement of road infrastructure in the country, the Government focused its attention to amenities to the users so that they get value for their money on the developed National Highways. Further, the Government in order to improve road infrastructure constituted a Technical Committee for finalization of the Manual for adoption of National Highways Works to be taken up through the Model Concession Agreement for Public Private Partnership projects. The Committee published a Manual of specifications and standards for 4 laning and 6 laning of National Highways to be constructed through Public Private Partnership. There does not appear to be any dispute that the recommendations in the Manual are in the nature of guidelines. Apart from that, it is pertinent to note that while recommending width of National Highways the committee has mentioned as to what should be the minimum width of median, paved carriageway on both sides of median, earthen shoulder, side drain, etc. Recommendation therefore cannot be taken as maximum, as tried to be contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The size (width) of the highway depends upon the requirement and it should not be less than what is stipulated in the guidelines. 25.2 While designing the horizontal alignment, it is necessary to see that it is fluent and blend well with the surrounding topography, sharp curves should not be introduced at the end of long tangent since those could be extremely hazardous. The curves should be sufficiently long and have suitable transitions to provide pleasant appearance, sufficient length between two curves should be provided for introduction of requisite transition curves and required super elevation, the curves in the same direction separated by short tangent known as broken back curves should be avoided as far as possible and wherever possible, such portion may be designed with longer single curve and to avoid distortion in appearance, the horizontal alignment should be coordinated carefully with the longitudinal profile. Grade changes should not be too frequent as to cause kinks and visual discontinuities. 26. In the present case, the respondents issued notification under section 3 D of the Act for acquisition of the land for widening the NH -17 to the extent of 60 mts. Grade changes should not be too frequent as to cause kinks and visual discontinuities. 26. In the present case, the respondents issued notification under section 3 D of the Act for acquisition of the land for widening the NH -17 to the extent of 60 mts. as a part of a mission undertaken by Government of India for improvement of road infrastructure in the country. For the existing NH 17 the lands were acquired some time in 1968. Though presently they propose to up-grade NH -17 to four lane divided carriageway facilities, they want to further up-grade it to six lane facilities. Though it is not stated as to when exactly they propose to up-grade it to six lane facilities, it is their case that keeping in view the requirements "for" the next 30 years, they have decided to acquire land for widening of the existing national Highway -17 to the extent of 60 mts. at this stage only so as to avoid successive acquisitions in future. Decision to have six lane facilities is not "after" 30 years, as tried to be contended by learned counsel for appellants, but "for the next" 30 years. In other words, the present acquisition is proposed keeping in view the requirement for 30 years from now. 27. It is not in dispute that the proposal for widening existing NH -17 is by NHAI which is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. It is not in dispute that the project of widening of the existing NH - 17, is vital for development of infrastructure in the country and the development is being carried out by the experts in the field of highways. Further, it is not in dispute that the persons involved in the project are having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. They have prepared detailed project report keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and public interest. It is in this backdrop as settled by the Supreme Court in the Judgments referred to above, the Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether particular alignment would sub-serve larger public interest. It is in this backdrop as settled by the Supreme Court in the Judgments referred to above, the Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether particular alignment would sub-serve larger public interest. In short, the scope of judicial review in such cases is absolutely limited unless the project is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to malafides. In the present case, the appellants have not alleged any malafides and could not point out or demonstrate that it is contrary to the mandate of law or there is any violation of the mandate of the NH Act. 28. The facts and figures reflected in the Manual of Specifications and Standards for Six Laning of National Highways through Public Private Partnership or in the statement of objections would only show that what should be the size of the road and its different sections such as median, paved carriageway, raised median, earthen shoulder, service roads, separation islands, footpath, side drain, utility corridors, etc. On the basis of the facts and figures reflected in the manual and in the statement of objections, it cannot be stated that the land being acquired for widening the existing national highway from 45 mts. To 60 mts. is unnecessary and that four and six lane facility could be provided in 45 mts. The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the feasibility of the particular project and whether particular width or alignment would sub-serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. In any case, it cannot be stated that the acquisition of land for widening the existing NH - 17 to the extent of 60 mts. is not for the use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Act. The ground of objection, therefore, deserves to be rejected outright. 29. In the present case, the total extent of land being acquired is 126 hectares for widening of existing national highway in the stretch of 90.8 kms. The respondents have already taken possession of the land to the extent of 102.30 hectares. 52.64 % of the work is complete. The ground of objection, therefore, deserves to be rejected outright. 29. In the present case, the total extent of land being acquired is 126 hectares for widening of existing national highway in the stretch of 90.8 kms. The respondents have already taken possession of the land to the extent of 102.30 hectares. 52.64 % of the work is complete. Due to this acquisition about 1250 structures have been affected out of which the land owners owning 38 structures only are before the Court. Except the appellants, all other land owners have accepted the acquisition. Out of the total number of appellants before Court, hardly 45 - 50% of the appellants raised objections and hearing to all those who desired to appear before the competent authority was given and orders passed by the competent authority were communicated to them. Out of 90.8 Kms. stretch of road, the total length of the road involved in the present appeals is hardly 6 Kms. Thus, it is clear that 90% of the land owners have either not made any grievance about acquisition of their lands and their lands stood validly acquired under the provisions of the Act. The occupants of 9/10 of the acquired lands have not even thought it fit to challenge these acquisition proceedings and the occupants of only 1/10 of lands are agitating their grievance since beginning. It is on this ground also the appeals deserve to be dismissed. (see OM PRAKASH & ANR. vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS – AIR 1998 SC 2504 ). Similarly, merely because the buildings have been constructed on the lands, such lands cannot be deleted from acquisition. The Supreme Court in JAIPAL SINGH (supra) has reiterated that there is no general policy as such that the lands on which constructions are made should be deleted from the acquisition. It is further clarified that if the construction is held to be made prior to publication of the preliminary notification, then alone the owners or the persons affected would be entitled for compensation. 30. In one of the appeals the question regarding a building called "High Point" was raised by Mr. Nitish - learned advocate appearing for the appellants. We have perused the sketch of the square where the building is situated. We have noticed that the respondents without changing the central line of the existing NH-17proposed to widen it on both the sides equally. Nitish - learned advocate appearing for the appellants. We have perused the sketch of the square where the building is situated. We have noticed that the respondents without changing the central line of the existing NH-17proposed to widen it on both the sides equally. From perusal of the sketch, we are also satisfied that it was not possible for them to change the central line of the road or re-align the road so as to save the building "High Point". Though we were also satisfied that acquisition, affecting the building "High Point" would cause hardship to the occupants of the building, but that by itself cannot be a ground for quashing the notification or even to issue any direction to re-align the road at that spot. The occupants or the persons who will be affected by this notification will definitely be entitled for compensation since the building "High Point" was in existence on the date of notification under section 3A of the Act. 31. It is now well settled that the public interest is paramount as against private interest. The acquisition undoubtedly causes grave hardship to the persons concerned but that cannot be a ground to stall the project of great national importance. The persons affected, the number of which may be absolutely negligible, can be compensated in terms of monies. The people at large, on the other hand cannot be made to suffer if the project is not completed in the manner in which the experts in the field desire to proceed. The projects are for the people at large and not to be implemented to suit the convenience of any individual or group of people. In the present case, we know that, NH - 17 at places, passes through congested areas but it is for the Government to decide as to which place is more convenient and if it is unavoidable for the concerned authorities to change alignment of the road, the decision taken in that regard cannot be said to be arbitrary decision, in particular, when no malafides are alleged. In any case, Court cannot decide as to which place is more convenient and whether the national highway could be re-aligned so as to save the properties of litigants before the Court. Thus, on this ground also the challenge deserves to be rejected. 32. In any case, Court cannot decide as to which place is more convenient and whether the national highway could be re-aligned so as to save the properties of litigants before the Court. Thus, on this ground also the challenge deserves to be rejected. 32. That takes us to consider the contention urged in rejoinder that the extent of the lands reflected in the notification under section 3A and the notification under section 3D differs. In other words, it was contended that the lands that were proposed to be acquired under the preliminary notification were much more than the lands reflected in the final notification under section 3D of the Act. On the basis thereof, it was submitted that some lands were dropped and the decision for dropping those lands was arbitrary. We find absolutely, no merit in this contention. As per the final notification issued under section 3D, it is clear that no land, that was proposed to be acquired in the notification under Section 3A has been deleted from acquisition. It appears that in the preliminary notification, there were some clerical errors in mentioning the facts and figures in respect of the extent of land and that they were not accurate and when the final notification was issued, the errors were corrected and that is how on paper the actual acquisition or the extent of the lands being acquired was reduced without compromising the proposed width of NH - 17. There is no allegation that after the notifications under section 3A were issued they have decided to reduce the proposed width of the road at any spot / place in the stretch of 90.8 kms. of the length of the national highway to save any land or to help any particular individual. In fact, most of the appellants were benefited in view of the final and accurate figures reflected in 3D notification. This contention was urged only by Mr. Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel in rejoinder in Writ Appeal No.331/12. 33. Next we would like to consider the submission of the learned senior counsel Mrs. Chidambaram that though right to property is no longer a fundamental right, the constitutional right under Article 300-A cannot be circumscribed. Under Article 300-A, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. 33. Next we would like to consider the submission of the learned senior counsel Mrs. Chidambaram that though right to property is no longer a fundamental right, the constitutional right under Article 300-A cannot be circumscribed. Under Article 300-A, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. She submitted that the right under Article 300-A is a valuable right and the person cannot be deprived of his property without following due process of law. She made this submission in the light of the case of the appellants that no opportunity of being heard was given to them before issuing final notification under section 3D of the Act. We have already considered whether hearing was given and the order / decision under section 3C was served on the appellants in the earlier part of the Judgment. The power of acquisition is the sovereign or prerogative power of the Government to acquire property. Such power exists independent of Article 300-A of the Constitution which merely indicates the limitations on the power of acquisition by the State. Thus, we do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the parties based on Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 34. Next we would like to consider the submission of Mrs. Chidambaram -learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that if 60 mts. highway is a national policy of the NHAI, there is no reason why States of Kerala and Goa should be excluded from national policy merely because the Governments there objected for acquisition of lands for widening the existing NH - 17. She further submitted, and if the respondents could exclude the States of Kerala and Goa, why are they proceeding with the acquisition in the State of Karnataka when the Chief Minister of Karnataka has taken decision which was communicated to the respondents vide letter dated 18.5.2010. We have perused the said letter signed by Under Secretary to Government, Public Works, Port & Inland Water Transport Dept., (Communication). It was addressed to Chief General Manager (T), NHAI. This letter speaks about the decision taken by the Chief Minister. We are not prepared to take cognizance of this letter for more than one reason. We have perused the said letter signed by Under Secretary to Government, Public Works, Port & Inland Water Transport Dept., (Communication). It was addressed to Chief General Manager (T), NHAI. This letter speaks about the decision taken by the Chief Minister. We are not prepared to take cognizance of this letter for more than one reason. Firstly, it speaks about the decision of the Chief Minister of Karnataka and not the decision of the Government of Karnataka and secondly, no such decision taken by the State Government is placed on record. At the end of the letter, it is stated that the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka has taken the decision to limit expansion of national highways width to 45 mts. in urban area and 60 mts. in rural area in future. In reply, the NHAI addressed a letter dated 26th May, 2010 to the Chief Minister, signed by the Chief General Manager. In this letter, reference to the meeting convened by the Chief Minister of Karnataka on 16.4.2010 is made, and it is stated that after due deliberations, the Chief Minister had understood the requirement of 60 mts. right of way and, therefore, the decision communicated vide letter dated 18.5.2010 is contrary to the decision taken in the meeting. It would be advantageous to re-produce the further contents of the letter to appreciate the stand of the respondents and their response to the communication dated 18.5.2010: "It is worth mentioning that Karnataka is growing state with large scale industrial development planned by Govt. of Karnataka and the traffic intensity on NH - 17 is bound to increase manifold in due course of time. The GOK has recognized the need for development of quality infrastructure including road sector as an essential means to achieve rapid economic growth in the State. The State Government in the budget 2009 10 spelled out its to implement "Suvarna Karnataka Development Work Programme" through the length and breadth of the State for industrial development. Under the above circumstances it is desirable to develop NH -17 immediately to 4 laning with provision for further extension to 6 laning. Similar requirement is felt on NH 14, NH - 17 and NH - 63 also. Under the above circumstances it is desirable to develop NH -17 immediately to 4 laning with provision for further extension to 6 laning. Similar requirement is felt on NH 14, NH - 17 and NH - 63 also. In view of the above it is once again emphasized that the decision of Hon'ble Chief Minister conveyed vide your above referred letter may kindly be reviewed and NHAI may kindly be allowed to proceed with acquisition of 60 m ROW along NH - 17." 34.1 There is one more letter placed on record by the respondents dated 15th June, 2010 of the NHAI addressed to the Asst. Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore. The following contents of the letter in our opinion are relevant and need to be noticed: "The 60 m ROW is necessary for four laning highway, side drains, service roads and to provide space for public utilities such as Water Supply pipe line, sewage line, HT/LT lines, telephones cables etc., apart from future widening requirement. As you are kindly aware, the stretch of NH -17 from Nantoor Circle to Mahaveer Circle and Mahaveer Circle to Ullal. Hence additional and width is absolutely necessary for providing embankment slopes as per IRC requirement. If the less width is acquired, the residential houses/shops that get damaged during the construction of the highway and operation of highway. In the larger interest of the safety measures, it is absolutely essential for acquisition of 60 m ROW width." Despite a lot of correspondence between the respondents and the Government of Karnataka in respect of NH - 17, it appears that ultimately Government of Karnataka vide its communication dated 8.12.2010 signed by Under Secretary for the Secretary, Public Works, Ports & Inland Water Transport, Bangalore, informing the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, that the permission had been granted by the Government of Karnataka for issue of the notification under section 3D of the Act for 60 mts. width; four lane of highway in Kadri, Maroli, Kankanady, Jeppinamogaru village and Nantoor to Talapady road. There is no dispute that these villages cover the lands of the appellants. This correspondence and, in particular the letter dated 8.12.2010, clearly shows that ultimately Government of Karnataka also had given its green signal for widening of the existing national highway to the extent of 60 mts. There is no dispute that these villages cover the lands of the appellants. This correspondence and, in particular the letter dated 8.12.2010, clearly shows that ultimately Government of Karnataka also had given its green signal for widening of the existing national highway to the extent of 60 mts. Learned Government Advocate also submitted that the State Government has taken decision to support the national policy to widen the existing NH 17 to the extent of 60 mts. Insofar as the purported decisions taken by the Kerala Government and Goa Government are concerned, we would not like to express any opinion in respect thereof because no such decisions are placed before us, and secondly, even if there are any decisions, they are not subject matter of these appeals and in any case such decisions of the other State Governments will not have any effect or bearing on merits of these appeals and hence this submission also must be rejected. 35. Lastly we would like to consider the submission advanced by learned senior advocate in rejoinder. Though this ground was not argued initially, we have entertained the submission in the interest of justice. It was submitted that there was no application of mind to the guidelines and the respondents did not follow the uniform norms. It was submitted that the acquisition notification indicated that the area of 60 mts. in the region of Ambalapady of Udupi Taluk is proposed to be acquired whereas in the region of Kundapur and Kota, at certain places / spots, the land acquisition is less than 45 mts. for NH - 17 which passes through the same stretch and therefore, it was wrong on their part to apply different yard stick for acquiring more land in a particular stretch and less land in another. We have perused the averments to this effect in paragraph 15 of the Writ Petition Nos.4988/11 to 5070/11 (W.A.955- 1012 & 1520-1544/12). The respondent no.1 (NHAI) in reply to these averments in paragraph 18 of the statement of objections has stated as follows: "................ It is submitted that the Detailed Project Report has been prepared only after the in- depth investigations and surveys. The respondent no.1 (NHAI) in reply to these averments in paragraph 18 of the statement of objections has stated as follows: "................ It is submitted that the Detailed Project Report has been prepared only after the in- depth investigations and surveys. Considering the socio economical impacts in Kundapur and Kota towns, which are congested town, the DPR Consultant has proposed 45 m Right of Way (ROW) for the reason that at the time of feasibility stage of the project study itself, the consultant has identified Kundapur and Kota as the most vulnerable stretches along the project road considering the social impact. As Kota is an old towns, most of the buildings within 45 m ROW are old semi pucca type and the number of buildings getting affected increases substantially if the Right of way is increased to 60 m. In Kundapur and Kota town because of less ROW width, it has been proposed to construct RCC drain along with cover slab which is costing more compared to unlined drain. Therefore, the comparison with Kundapur and Kota town is unreasonable. The RCC drain cannot be constructed all along the project length of 90 km. due to higher cost. There is no space available for plantation in Kundapur and Kota town and future public amenities such as Under Ground Drainages (UGD) cannot be laid in Kundapur and Kota town. Any other future expansion or improvements can be taken up only after the additional land acquisition. It is submitted that the land acquisition process will consume considerable time which will result in Time Over Run and Cost Over Run of the development works. The Highway running in Ambalpadi and Udupi town is a bypass constructed in the year 1972-74. Hence, it cannot be compared with Kundapur and Kota town." 35.1 Having considered the explanation offered by respondent no.1 in the aforementioned paragraph we do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned senior Advocate in rejoinder. As observed by the Supreme Court in KUSHALA SHETTY this Court cannot make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the appellants are tainted when there are no allegations of malafides. There is no dispute that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field and development and maintenance of national highways. There is no dispute that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field and development and maintenance of national highways. In any case, the Court cannot substitute its opinion as against the decision taken by the experts committee having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. 36. It is now well settled that acquisition for the benefit of public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. The Courts are expected to keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their powers in the matters where notifications issued for acquisition of land are under challenge. Powers under Article 226 will have to be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on the making out a legal point in the matter of land acquisition for public purpose. In the result the appeals fail and dismissed as such. There shall be no order as to costs. Insofar as appellant no.5 Padmavathi Shanhogue and appellant no.6 Dinakar Shenoy in the group of appeals i.e. W.A. Nos.336 -363/12 are concerned, their respective appeals are allowed to be withdrawn for the reasons stated in their memos dated 7.2.2013 filed by the learned counsel for appellants no.5 & 6.