JUDGMENT B. RAJENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner Company, by name, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL) was established in India based on the approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board, Government of India, dated 11.03.1996. The petitioner Company was incorporated on 06.05.1996 with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. The petitioner has made an application to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [SIPCOT] for allotment of plot for the purpose of establishing the passenger car manufacturing unit and accordingly, the Government of Tamilnadu through SIPCOT, acquired 540 acres approximately at Plot Nos. H1, G5 and G6 in the Industrial Park, Irrungattukkottai, Kancheepuram District and put to use of the petitioner from time to time by various orders of allotment. The allotment of plots were followed up with a Deed of Sale, dated 21.07.1999, in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased lands measuring 1.675 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 106/Part, 105/15, 105/16 Part, 106/1, 105/6, 105/7 and 105/8 along with the building vide Sale Deed, dated 12.06.1997. The petitioner Company also purchased 536.54 acres or thereabouts within the Sub-Registration District of Chengelpet in Kancheepuram Revenue District in various survey numbers, vide, Sale Deed, dated 21.07.1999. The petitioner has established huge superstructure by incurring huge expenses. While so, on 03.11.2012, a representative of fourth respondent had come to petitioner Factory and handed over a proceeding dated 19.10.2012, in which, it was stated that the land owners or the persons interested in the lands could appear for an enquiry before the fourth respondent. The petitioner requested the authority not to proceed with the enquiry and sought some clarification. Thereafter, declaration under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, The Act) was issued by the first respondent by proceedings in S.O. No. 2180 (E), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 21.09.2011. Seeking to quash the impugned Notification issued by the first respondent in S.O. No. 2180 (E), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 21.09.2011 under Section 3A (1) of the Act in respect of the acquisition of petitioner's land in Survey No. 105/1A1 (Pt) measuring 532 sq.mt., Survey No. 105/8B1 (Pt) measuring 174 sq.mt., Survey No. 106/1A1 (Pt) measuring 181 sq.mt and Survey No. 106/4A1 (Pt) measuring 423 sq.mt. at Irrungattukkottai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and to direct respondents 1 to 4 to exclude the said lands from acquisition proceeding, the Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The main ground of attack made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even though, the petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 3G (3) and (4) of the Act, dated 19.10.2012, wherein, it was stated that the land owners or the persons interested in the lands shall appear for an enquiry on 08.11.2012 and submit their objections in respect of acquisition of land, but, the said notice did not clearly make a mention about the land or the actual extent of the land, which is going to be acquired and a land plan is also not appended thereto. He would further add that the said notice was issued in the name of the previous owner and as it was not issued in the name of the petitioner, he only requested the authority not to proceed with the enquiry and sought for some clarification, but, it was not done, therefore, the very Notification issued by the first respondent under Section 3A(1) of the Act is per se illegal. He would further contend that the said Notification failed to meet the requirement as contemplated under the Act. He would further add that since, the Notification does not give brief description of the land sought to be compulsorily acquired and the description of the land is vague, the said Notification is bad in law. He would further point out that as per the Notification, the petitioner was not able to identify what actually the property or which part of the property is going to be acquired, as it has not been specifically mentioned in the Notification; therefore, when brief description of land as required under Section 3A(2) of the Act has not been given, the Notification should be declared as invalid. Further, learned counsel would specifically state that when there is no land plan appended to the Notification, the Notification itself is bad in law. Further, learned counsel would specifically state that when there is no land plan appended to the Notification, the Notification itself is bad in law. In support of his case, learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 477, wherein also, the description of land has not been properly given in the Notification and no land plan has been appended thereto and ultimately, in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the very Notification; hence, he would contend that the Writ Petition has to be allowed and the Notification has to be set aside. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter and he would mainly contend that the acquisition of the petitioner's land is required for widening the existing four lane road into six lane road in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. Originally, as per Section 3(a) of the Act, the Special District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram, was authorized to function as the Competent Authority and it was notified in the Government Gazette. Thereafter, a Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act was issued mentioning therein brief description of land to be acquired. The substance of the Notification was also published in two local dailies viz. The New Indian Express and Daily Thanthi, on 12.11.2011, notifying that any person interested in the land described therein might object to such acquisition proceedings within 21 days from the date of such publication under Section 3C(1) of the Act. Thus, the petitioner was given ample opportunity of being heard either in person or through a legal practitioner. The petitioner has not filed any objection under Section 3C(1) of the Act for the proposed land acquisition proceedings at the relevant point of time within the stipulated period. Since, no objection was received from the petitioner by the Competent Authority, declaration under Section 3D of the Act was passed, thereafter, the land vested with the Central Government. The petitioner is a big organisation and it is represented by lawyers. According to the third respondent, the Notification and description of property have been clearly made in accordance with law. The declaration made under Section 3A(1) of the Act with brief description of land sought to be acquired was in accordance with the approved schedule. The schedule contains list of lands said to be acquired. According to the third respondent, the Notification and description of property have been clearly made in accordance with law. The declaration made under Section 3A(1) of the Act with brief description of land sought to be acquired was in accordance with the approved schedule. The schedule contains list of lands said to be acquired. Having not responded to any of the Notifications and publications and after a long gap of 502 days from the date of issuance of Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, the petitioner has come to this Court, therefore, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed on laches, whereas, as per the Act, the petitioner is entitled to file his objections before the Competent Authority within the stipulated period of 21 days, when he has failed to do so, the Writ Petition is not at all maintainable. The land plan was available with the Competent Authority, instead of choosing to look into the land plan and also having kept quiet without filing his objections, he has come before this Court. The Notifications were clear and all the proceedings of acquisition were published within a period of one year and as of now, the respondents are at the stage of passing the award. It is acquired only for the public interest and the entire project relates to widening of four lane into six lane road, which is essential for easing vehicular traffic, especially, the petitioner being the second largest producer of car should be the first person to allow this project relating to widening of four lane into six lane road to be carried out, hence, he would pray for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. The fourth respondent, who is the Competent Authority, has filed a separate counter narrating all the facts how the publications were effected and declaration has been made. He would mainly contend that a Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 22.09.2011. The substance of the 3A(1) Notification was published in two daily newspapers, viz., The New Indian Express and Daily Thanthi on 12.11.2011 as per Section 3A(3) of the Act. A time of 21 days was given for filing objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition. No objection has been received from anybody including the petitioner. The substance of the 3A(1) Notification was published in two daily newspapers, viz., The New Indian Express and Daily Thanthi on 12.11.2011 as per Section 3A(3) of the Act. A time of 21 days was given for filing objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition. No objection has been received from anybody including the petitioner. Subsequently, declaration under Section 3D(1) of the Act was published on 14.08.2012 in the Gazette of India, dated 14.08.2012. From then onwards, the land vested with the Central Government. An enquiry under Section 3G(3) and (4) of the Act has been conducted by issuing notice on 19.10.2012 to determine the ownership of the lands acquired for payment of compensation. A representative of the petitioner attended the enquiry and requested not to proceed with the enquiry and sought for some clarification. He would mainly contend that the acquisition of land is for a public purpose and all proceedings for acquisition has been taken as per the provisions of National Highways Act. Further, the petitioner knew very well that the land abutting the existing road only will be acquired for widening of the road, this is only done in this case and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 6. The main ground raised by the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 477, is that the description of property in the Notification is vague and when a part of land is sought to be acquired, which part is sought to be acquired has not been specifically mentioned and that no land plan has been produced along with the Notice under Section 3G(3) and(4) of the Act, dated 19.10.2012, calling upon the land owners or the persons interested in the lands to appear for an enquiry before the fourth respondent. Even though, a representative of the petitioner participated in the enquiry, he requested the authority not to proceed with the enquiry and sought for some clarification, but, that has not been done, therefore, the acquisition proceeding is per se illegal and not in accordance with law. Even though, a representative of the petitioner participated in the enquiry, he requested the authority not to proceed with the enquiry and sought for some clarification, but, that has not been done, therefore, the acquisition proceeding is per se illegal and not in accordance with law. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory & others, (2005)13 Supreme Court Cases 477, wherein also only a part of the land out of a bigger chunk of land is sought to be acquired, but, the description of land has not been properly given in the Notification and no land plan has been appended thereto and ultimately, in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the very Notification did not satisfy the requirement of Section 3A of the Act. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the said omission made it impossible to make a claim for proper compensation or to file objection against the acquisition. It was further observed that the respondents cannot raise the subsidiary issues, such as, there was delay in filing the Writ Petition; the Writ Petitioners had not filed objections within the time limit; and details of the land given in the application for compensation showed that landowners knew all the details of the land under acquisition, to say that the acquisition is correct. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that when in the Notification even though plot numbers of lands in respect of each mouza are given in the impugned Notification, different pieces of land are acquired either as whole or in part, when the acquisition is of a portion of a bigger piece of land, there is no description as to which portion was being acquired; unless it is known as to which portion was to be acquired, the petitioners were unable to understand the impact of acquisition or to raise any objection about the user of the acquired land for the purposes specified under the Act or to make a claim for compensation. It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, that act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, that act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. Therefore, it was held that the impugned Notification failed to meet the statutory mandate and it is vague and is not in accordance with law and it is for this purpose, learned counsel mainly relied on the decision cited supra. 7. No doubt, in the case on hand, there is no land plan appended to the Notification. But, it is mentioned in the 3A(1) Notification that the land plan and other details of land are available in the office of the Competent Authority and it can be inspected by the interested person at the office of the Competent Authority. But, the petitioner has not utilized this provision. Further, the petitioner was issued with Notice under Section 3G (3) and (4) of the Act, dated 19.10.2012, directing him to appear before the fourth respondent for an enquiry; the petitioner also participated in the enquiry either in person or through his representative, but, he did not avail the opportunity to file objections, he only requested the authority not to proceed with the enquiry and sought for some clarification. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 477, even though, it has held that the impugned Notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid, because, it failed to meet the statutory requirements and then it has gone to decide about possession. Having found that taking possession of the land of the Writ Petitioners in pursuance of the said Notification was not in accordance with law, went on to decide as to what relief can be granted to the land owners therein and ultimately held that since the acquisition of land was for a project of great National importance i.e., the construction of a National Highway and in view of the necessity and need of the Government, especially, in public interest matters, where the entire project relates to construction of National Highway, ultimately, did not chose to quash the notification, but only allowed the land owners to have the benefit of paying more amount of compensation. As rightly pointed out by respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner Company themselves being a Car manufacturers will knew very well about the importance of National Highway, especially, expanding the National Highway, he cannot have any objection at all, as the cars are being used by more and more people in this country, which has necessitated widening of the existing roads and formation of new roads. Due to industrial development, ever increasing tourism and vehicular movements, it is found that land acquisition is essential to widen the existing four lane road into six lane road. It is also clear that the petitioner knew about the acquisition well before, because, he has appeared for the enquiry either in person or through his representative, but, instead of filing objections, he has requested not to proceed with the enquiry only and sought for some clarification and thereafter, he has kept quiet for quite a long years and he came to object only at the last minute stating that the Declaration under Section 3A(1) of the Act does not give brief description of land sought to be compulsorily acquired under Section 3A (2) of the Act and therefore, it makes impossible to know which part of land is under acquisition. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 477, which is relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In paragraph Nos. 12 to 14 of the said judgment, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:- “12. The aspect of possession of land having been taken by the Competent Authority, is an important issue for consideration in this case. Vesting of land in the Central Government has been held to be not in accordance with the law. The other statutory requirement which needs to be complied before taking possession is deposit of compensation. Under Section 3E(1) possession can be taken only after the land vests in the Central Government and the amount determined by the Competent Authority as compensation under Section 3G has been deposited under sub-section (1) of Section 3H. In the present case in view of an order dated 3rd April, 2002 passed by the High Court final compensation could not be determined by the competent Authority. In the present case in view of an order dated 3rd April, 2002 passed by the High Court final compensation could not be determined by the competent Authority. Therefore, there could not be a valid deposit of amount finally determined as required under Section 3E(1) of the Act, which means the possession could not have been taken. But the fact is that possession was taken on 19th February, 2003 on deposit of provisional amount of compensation. The NHAI had in fact applied for permission of court to take possession of the land under acquisition. But without any order being passed on that application, it hastened to take possession after giving only one day's notice when the Act requires 60 days notice. Moreover, the possession is to be taken through the Commissioner of Police or the Collector. This was not done. Neither of the three statutory requirements for taking possession were fulfilled. Thus taking of possession of the lands in the present case is in total violation of the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the acquiring authority submits that possession was taken on basis of oral observations of the court. This is a totally misconceived plea. Court orders are always in black and white. Oral orders are never passed. Moreover, this plea is wrong because the Division Bench observed in its order dated 27th March, 2003 that it never dealt with question of possession. The result is that taking possession of the land sought to be acquired cannot be said to be in accordance with law in this case and does not improve matters for NHAI. 13. At this stage we would like to note that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners made reference to a publication in the nature of a brochure issued by the West Bengal Government wherein it is mentioned that motels/shops/petrol pumps etc. will also come up in the area where the acquired land is situate. On this basis it was sought to be argued that such use of the acquired land would be contrary to the use mentioned in Section 3A of the Act and, therefore, is not permissible. There was lot of controversy on this aspect between the parties particularly, on the ground that this plea was being taken at this belated stage when the respondents had no opportunity to give a proper reply thereto. There was lot of controversy on this aspect between the parties particularly, on the ground that this plea was being taken at this belated stage when the respondents had no opportunity to give a proper reply thereto. We have mentioned this only for the reason that the issue has come up during the course of hearing. We do not consider it necessary to go into this aspect, in view of the fact that we have held in this judgment that the basic acquisition notification itself is not in accordance with law. 14. Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance, i.e. the construction of a national highway. The construction of national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the land owners. Quashing of the notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the land owners, that is, writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action.” 9. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the land owners, that is, writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action.” 9. In the decision cited supra, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the impugned Notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid, but, it has not proceeded to quash the impugned Notification having found that the acquisition of land in that case was for a project of great National importance i.e. the construction of a National Highway. In the case on hand also, since, the project is for expansion of National Highway, it is of great National importance and it is infact a necessary one. Further more, the fact remains that the petitioner's representative has participated in the enquiry, but, he has neither chosen to file his objections nor availed the opportunity of looking into the land plan, which was very well available with the Competent Authority, in such circumstances, he has no locus standi to question the acquisition itself, that too belatedly, on the ground of no opportunity given and hence, the Notification cannot be quashed. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.