Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The 12th petitioner stated that he and other petitioners are owners of the landed properties which are situated in Navani Village, Namakkal Taluk. The 2nd respondent namely District Revenue Officer, Namakkal has proposed to acquire the petitioner's lands under the National Highways Act, by publication of a notice under section 3-A of the National Highways Act. The petitioners have submitted their objections to the respondents. Further, the respondents have not paid with soletium of 30% of the land value as provided under section 23(2) an additional compensation at the rate of 9% as provided under section 23(A), interest at the rate of 9% and 15% as the case may be under section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents have not granted fair compensation to the petitioners. 2. The Petitioner submits that her objections were not taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent and though Section 3-C of the National Highways Act 1956, requires a hearing of the objections, no meaningful hearing was conducted by the 2nd respondent. Himself and her Advocate appeared before the 2nd respondent on 21.08.2006 and the 2nd respondent merely noted that about our presence before him. No hearing was conducted, therefore, he has sent his objections in her application filed before the 2nd respondent on 16.09.2006 and on receipt of this application the 2nd respondent in his memorandum dated 29.05.2007 issued in his reference Na.Ka.27673/2006/H4 has stated that her Advocate had given a statement on 22.08.2006. He submits that the 2nd respondent had once again received her objections in writing and none of the objections was considered while rejecting her objections by his order dated 20.10.2006. He submits that among other objections and submitted that by the proposed alignment of the National Highway, her lands will be selected in to 2 bits, one immediately on the west of the existing road and another on the west of the proposed road any by this heir holdings will become uneconomical. In these circumstances, they have filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.42422/2006 questioning the acquisition of heir lands. In these circumstances, they have filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.42422/2006 questioning the acquisition of heir lands. He submits that pending disposal of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent had made a declaration under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act 1956 and therefore this Court was pleased to dismiss her writ petition by its orders passed on 28.06.2007 as not pressed. He also submit that the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of her writ petition, without considering any of her objections to the notice under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act had rejected our objections by its order dated 20.10.2006. 3. He submits that the proposed alignment of the National Highways will divide heir lands into two bits and as submitted above her holdings will become uneconomical. The 2nd respondent by his order dated 11.09.2006 has stated that since there are residential houses in S.No.173/3 and 173/4 and S.Nos.789, 785, 788 and 790 and a by-pass road was planned. They were also directed to approach the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Salem (in short NHAI, Salem) to get clarifications and the 2nd respondent had forwarded her objections to the said authority by his letter dated 11.09.2006 in Na.kA.27673/06 (H4) dated 11.09.2006 and the National Highways Authority of India, Salem sent a letter in his Ref: NHAI/PD & M(1) NH-7/TN-2/Rep./2006, dated 05.10.2006 stating that since the detailed project report was approved by the Competent Authority, the objections cannot be accepted. 4. The petitioner submits that he has sent an application under Right to Information Act to National Highways Authority of India, Salem, to furnish him the particulars of the detailed project report and to his enquiry of National Highways Authority of India, Salem had sent a reply in his NHAI/PD/NH-7/TN-2/RTI Act/2007, dated 08.06.2007 stating that three options were proposed for the conversion of N.H.7 into a four way lane road. The 1st option was an extension along the existing road, the 2nd option was on the western side of the existing road and on the 3rd option was on the Eastern side of the existing road. The 2nd respondent along with his memorandum dated 29.05.2007 served the copy of the plan showing the proposed bye-pass as per the 2nd option. He produced it for inspection of this Court. In the memorandum the total length of the bye-pass was given as 1.258 Kms. The 2nd respondent along with his memorandum dated 29.05.2007 served the copy of the plan showing the proposed bye-pass as per the 2nd option. He produced it for inspection of this Court. In the memorandum the total length of the bye-pass was given as 1.258 Kms. whereas, in the detailed project report, the copy of which was sent to on 08.06.2007, which is produced herewith for inspection of this Court the length of the by-pass according to option to was shown as 1.58 Kms (viz) 1,580 meters. The 2nd respondent had supplied his plan of the proposed by-pass according to option two of the total length of the bye-pass was shown as 1.5 k.m (i.e.) 1500 meters. Therefore, if a proper survey was conducted as provided under Section 3-B of National Highways Act 1956 and a detailed project report was prepared properly, there could not be any disparity in the length of the proposed bypass. Thus, it is evident that detailed project report is incorrect on the face of it. Therefore, the rejection of her objections to the proposed alignment of the road is not sustainable. 5. He submits that apart from her objections to the proposed alignment, as submitted above they have objected the acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act 1956, since it deprives of legitimate benefits under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and he submits that if the amounts determined by the Competent Authority is not acceptable, the affected person can make an application to the Arbitrator appointed by the 1st respondent for determination of a proper compensation. In this case, the 1st respondent has appointed the District Collectors of Salem, Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri as Arbitrators and they have made applications under Right to Information Act with the Arbitrators namely, the District Collectors of Salem, Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri to give us information about the number of cases referred for Arbitration, the number of cases taken on file, the number of cases decided and the nature of decision given by the Arbitrator. The District Collector, Salem, as Arbitrator has given a reply stating that 213 applications received and taken on file and all the applications were dismissed holding that the amount fixed by the Competent Authority was fair and reasonable. The District Collector, Salem, as Arbitrator has given a reply stating that 213 applications received and taken on file and all the applications were dismissed holding that the amount fixed by the Competent Authority was fair and reasonable. Similarly, the District Collector, Dharmapuri, has stated that he had not received any arbitration petitions and the District Collector, Krishnagiri, has stated that 1739 cases were received for arbitration and 310 cases were taken on file and decision has not been awarded in any of these cases. He submits that the appointment of the arbitrator by the 1st respondent under Section 3-G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956 is only a make believe appointment and there was no meaningful disposal of the disputes by arbitration. 6. He submits that by resorting to acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956, and they were deprived of several benefits which they were entitled under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. In the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the land owners are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, a reference under section 18 is made and the matter is decided by a Civil Court according to law. Whereas, the Arbitration under National Highways Act 1956, does not provide any effective remedy to them. Similarly as submitted above several benefits provided under Section 23, 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act 1956. 7. Apart from the inbuilt provisions contained in Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Government of Tamil Nadu has also issued guidelines in the Revenue Standing Orders to the Land Acquisition Officers for fixing a proper and reasonable compensation for acquisition of lands. Board Standing Orders which is now referred as Revenue Standing Orders paragraph 90 provides detailed guidelines to the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing reasonable and proper compensation. Such provisions are not available in the National Highways Act, 1956. 8. He submits that by an amendment of the National Highways Act 1956 (Section-3) was introduced by amendment Act 16 of 1997 by which the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are not applicable for acquisition under the National Highways Act 1956. Such provisions are not available in the National Highways Act, 1956. 8. He submits that by an amendment of the National Highways Act 1956 (Section-3) was introduced by amendment Act 16 of 1997 by which the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are not applicable for acquisition under the National Highways Act 1956. He submits that the constitutionality of Section-3 of the National Highways Act as the subject matter of decision before this Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the case reported in AIR 2003 Kant.165 and this Court was unconstitutional as the land owners are deprived of the benefits to which they are entitled if their lands were acquired under Land Acquisition Act 1894. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 9. The second respondent namely the District Revenue Officer has filed a counter statement and opposed the above writ petition. The respondent submits that the Government of India, have announced scheme of four landing of National Highways Road from Kashmir to Kaniyakumari under North South corridor scheme and accordingly implementing four way track road. For the work of formation of four landing, the private lands are being acquired under provisions laid down in the National Highways Act 1956.(Central Act 48 of 1956). The work of building (Widening/Four laning etc) Maintenance/Management and operation of National Highways No.7 on the stretch of land from KM217-600 to KM 278-600 (Salem-Karur Section) in Namakkal District in State of Tamil Nadu, is being implemented by the Project Director, PIU, Salem and Karur. 10. For the above purpose, the Government of India have authorized District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, as competent Authority to perform the functions under the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) for acquiring the lands on the stretches from 217.600 Km to 278.600 Km (Salem-Karur Section) in District Namakkal in the State of Tamil Nadu vide Gazatte of India Extraordinary No.816 (S.O.No.1040 (E) Part-II, Section 3, Sub Sec (ii), dated 24.09.2004 and Amendment Notification published in the Government of India (Extraordinary) No.450 (S.O.651 (E) Part II, Sec 3, Sub Section (ii) Dated 04.05.2006. 11. The respondent submits that the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, is acquiring lands for fourlaning of the National Highways Road No.7. After due survey and demarcation in the field, an extent of 143761 Sq.mts of land in S.No.172/1 etc., in Navani Village have been identified for acquisition. 11. The respondent submits that the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, is acquiring lands for fourlaning of the National Highways Road No.7. After due survey and demarcation in the field, an extent of 143761 Sq.mts of land in S.No.172/1 etc., in Navani Village have been identified for acquisition. For this purpose notification under section 3-A(1) of Central Act 48 of 1956 was published in the Gazatte of India (Extraordinary) No.450 in S.O.652(E) Dated 04.055.2006. The said notification was also published on 28.06.2006 in two local dailies viz., ‘Dhinathanthi’ and ‘Hindu’. Enquiry under section 3(c) was conducted on 22.08.2006 order under sections 3(c)(2) were issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2006. notification under section 3(D)(1) was published in the Gazatte of India No.501 in S.O.686 (E) Dated 30.04.2007. Notification under Section 3(G)(3) of National Highways Act, 1956 in two local dailies, viz., ‘Dhinathanthi’ and Hindu on 21.05.2007. Enquiry under Section 3(G)(3) was conducted by the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal on 06.06.2007. 12. The respondent submits that the Government of India have authorized the District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, as competent Authority to perform the functions under the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquiring the lands on the stretches of 217.600 to 278.600 (Salem-Karur Section) for widening/four laning etc. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not in anyway applicable in this issue. The respondent submits that it is not correct to say that objections raised by the petitioner were not taken into consideration. Enquiry under section 3(c)(2) was conducted by the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal on 22.08.2006. The petitioner appeared to the enquiry with his advocate. His Advocate filed written statement. His representation was carefully examined by the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal and the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected as unsustainable and merit less. A reply was sent to the petitioner in ROC.No.2295/2004 (H4) dated 20.10.2006. He again had given a petition to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal on 16.09.2006. A reply was given to the petitioner on 31.10.2006. He has sent a petition to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal on 09.10.2006 under Right to Information Act. The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal has given reply to the petitioner on 16.10.2006 hence, the averments put forth by the petitioner are not correct. 13. A reply was given to the petitioner on 31.10.2006. He has sent a petition to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal on 09.10.2006 under Right to Information Act. The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal has given reply to the petitioner on 16.10.2006 hence, the averments put forth by the petitioner are not correct. 13. The respondent submits that extensive studies were conducted in the above stretches by the consultant appointed to the National Highways Authority Act and the recommendation based on the specification and guidelines presently in force with respect of National Highways has been accepted and accordingly work has been awarded on BOT basis. National Highways is normally required to be on a straight line is contrary to facts and denied. Geometric Design Standards adopted is as per IRC codes applicable to National Highways (IRC 38-1988 and 66-1976). Due to ribbon development on both sides Puduchatram ( 234.600 Km to 236.100 Km) has been decided to be bye passed through the right hand side after considering all the aspects of the situation. Since, National Highways are required to follow and confirm to certain nationally accepted/approved codes and specification. The same cannot be constructed along the boundaries of individual land holding and it is likely to cut through individual holding since geometric of the alignment is the prime concern other than the boundary of the holdings by individuals and the respondent submits that it is not correct to say that no proper survey was conducted for the acquisition for bye pass road. The Project Director National Highways Authority of India, Salem, has measured the distance of the bye pass with their technical staff and furnished detailed project report to the petitioner. The measurement reported by the project Director is correct. 14. The respondent submits that the Land Acquisition process comes under National Highways Act 1956. The Land Acquisition Act 1894 will not be applicable in this issue as per section 3 J of the National Highways Act 1956. Hence, the averment of the petitioner is not correct. 15. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the main writ petition. 16. The Land Acquisition Act 1894 will not be applicable in this issue as per section 3 J of the National Highways Act 1956. Hence, the averment of the petitioner is not correct. 15. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the main writ petition. 16. The 1st respondent has filed a counter statement stating that the Central Government, pursuant to the policy decision to connect the States, Districts and Major Towns in the process of acquiring lands for laying roads and widening the existing roads by acquiring the lands for operation of four laning National Highways. The economy of India is increasing rapidly due to interstate movements which are made possible by Central Government by way of acquisition of lands and widening of existing roads. Most of the existing roads width is not enough for free and easy vehicular movements due to enormous traffic which has grown several folds. In this context, the work for four laneing of Salem to Karur section as National Highways was undertaken in the year 2006, lands in 30 villages were acquired and the project is in the public interest and in a time-bound project. 17. He denies the allegation made in para 2 and he respectfully submits that since the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose the subject lands are required for building maintenance, management and operation of National Highways, by Notification in the official Gazette published in Government of India in S.No.652(E) dated 04.05.2006 declared its intentions to acquire the said lands. Publications in the News papers under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 were issued in the following vernaculars. Sl. No. Media Date of Publication 1. The Thinathanthi (Tamil) 28.06.2006 2. The Hindu (English) 28.06.2006 18. He denies the allegation made in para 3 and he states that the Petitioners sent an objection and after issuing notice, enquiry under Section 3C(2) was conducted by the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal on 22.08.2006. The Petitioners appeared along with their counsels and filed written statements. Individual representation was carefully examined by the Competent Authority viz. District Revenue Officer, Namakkal and objections were found to be unsustainable and hence rejected by his order dated 28.10.2006 and the said order was sent to the Petitioners. The Petitioners did not chose to challenge the said order dated 28.10.2006. Individual representation was carefully examined by the Competent Authority viz. District Revenue Officer, Namakkal and objections were found to be unsustainable and hence rejected by his order dated 28.10.2006 and the said order was sent to the Petitioners. The Petitioners did not chose to challenge the said order dated 28.10.2006. The land owners again gave a petition to the Competent Authority, District Revenue Officer, Namakkal on 16.09.2006. A reply was given to the Petitioners on 31.10.2006. Since the only ground for filing the Writ Petition is concerning the compensation, the Petitioners can ventilate their grievances at the time of fixing the amount under Section 3G. Further, after exploring all options, the present alignment is chosen. It is respectfully submitted that 3D Notification was issued by the Central Government on 30.04.2007 and the same was published on the same date in Government Gazette No.501 S.O. 686(E) and hence the land now vests with the Central Government as per Section 3D(2). 19. He denies the allegation made in para 4 and he respectfully submits that extensive studies were conducted by the consultant appointed by the NHAI and their recommendations based on the specification and guide lines presently in force with respect to National Highways has been accepted and accordingly the work has been awarded on a BOT Basis. Due to ribbon developments on both sides at Puduchatram (Km 234.600 to Km 236.100) of Road, it was decided to form a bypass on the Right hand side after exploring all the options. National Highways is required to follow and confirm to certain nationally accepted and approved codes and specification which was followed in this case. 20. He denies the allegation made in para 5 and 6 and he respectfully submits that the existing road width is not enough for free and easy vehicular movements due to enormous traffic which has increased several folds. In this context the work of four-laneing of Km 217.600 to Km 278.600 of Salem - Karur section on National Highways No.7 was under taken in the year 2006. Lands in 30 villages were acquired and the project has commenced and hence if any spokes are put to the project, the acquisition will come to a standstill. 21. In this context the work of four-laneing of Km 217.600 to Km 278.600 of Salem - Karur section on National Highways No.7 was under taken in the year 2006. Lands in 30 villages were acquired and the project has commenced and hence if any spokes are put to the project, the acquisition will come to a standstill. 21. He denies the allegation made in para 7 and he respectfully submits that the 3G notification was issued calling to state their nature of interest over acquired land to decide the amount of compensation the said publication was published in the following vernaculars. S. No. Media Date of Publication 1. The Thinathanthi (Tamil) 14.05.2007 2. The Hindu (English) 14.05.2007 Under Section 3(G) of N.H. Act, the land which is acquired under this Act, the amount is determined by the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Namakkal. If the amount determined by the Competent Authority under Section 3G is not acceptable to either of the parties, the parties can approach the Arbitrators to be appointed by the Central Government. The District Collectors are nominated as Arbitrators. The Petitioners have relied on the statistics of Arbitration cases in other Districts, but have failed to prove that the decisions of the Arbitrators are incorrect. 22. He denies the allegation made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and he respectfully submits that when there is a special enactment the applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not arise. The Special enactment quickens the acquisition proceedings and provides for payment of compensation as per market value. With regard to allegation that G3(J) of N.H. Act in 1956 has been struck down, it is submitted that the Single Judge Order has been stayed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court. Hence, for all purpose, Section 3J applies in full vigor. If the lands are acquired under the Provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 the compensation is payable to the land owners as provided under the Act which does not include Solatium, Additional compensation and interest. However, apart from the market value of land and for structures, 10% of additional value on the amount arrived is also paid. When a Special Act is legislated by the Parliament, it is futile on the part of the Petitioner to state that the land has to be acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, apart from the market value of land and for structures, 10% of additional value on the amount arrived is also paid. When a Special Act is legislated by the Parliament, it is futile on the part of the Petitioner to state that the land has to be acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Special Acts excludes the General Act and therefore these allegations cannot be countenanced in law. Even otherwise the compensations are fixed for the following. 1. Land value 2. Structure value 3. Well value 4. Tree value 5. 10% Additional value (users right compensation) Hence there is no loss to the Petitioners. 23. It is respectfully submitted that consultants have studied the project in detail and a bypass was recommended at Puduchatram from Km 234.600 to Km 236.100 on right hand side after analyzing the various options available. The DPR has been approved by the Competent Authority. Hence, the objections raised by the Petitioner deserve no considerations and is liable to be rejected. 24. He denies the allegations made in grounds B to F and he respectfully submitted that the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Namakkal has conducted enquiry under Section 3C of the Act on 22.08.2006. The Petitioners and their counsels appeared before the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal and has filed a written statement. The Competent Authority after hearing the parties and counsel has rejected the objections by his order dated 28.10.2006. 25. It is also submitted that as, the petitioners and other lands are found very imperative to develop into formation of the widening the four lane road, the acquisition of lands are for the welfare of the public individual and therefore the private interest of the petitioners should not prevail upon the public interest. It is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the above writ petition. 26. The highly competent counsel Mr. M. Rajasekar, submits that all the petitioners are the owners of lands situated at Narani Village, Namakkal District. The District Revenue Officer, who is attached to the Namakkal District had issued a publication on 28.06.2006 in the Tamil newspaper as well as English newspaper stating that the petitioners lands are to be acquired for widening the road. The petitioners have submitted their objection to the 2nd respondent and the same has not been considered by the 2nd respondent. The District Revenue Officer, who is attached to the Namakkal District had issued a publication on 28.06.2006 in the Tamil newspaper as well as English newspaper stating that the petitioners lands are to be acquired for widening the road. The petitioners have submitted their objection to the 2nd respondent and the same has not been considered by the 2nd respondent. Further, the petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court and challenged the said acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had sent an application under Right to Information Act to furnish him the particulars of the detailed project report. They also furnished the details stating that the respondents acquired the land to an extension along the existing road and western side and eastern side of the existing road. Further, the 2nd respondent, without considering the petitioner's objections and without conducting a comprehensive enquiry, rejected their objections for acquiring the land. Further, the District Revenue Officer/Land Acquisition Officer admitted that there were residential houses in Survey Nos.173/3, 173/4, 785, 788, 789, 790 while passing the impugned order, the same was not considered. As such, the acquisition proceedings is not appropriate for acquiring the petitioner's lands. 27. The highly competent counsel Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent had issued notification for acquiring the petitioners lands in order to lay roads and widening the existing roads by acquiring lands for operation of fourlaneing of National Highways. The very competent counsel further submits that the petitioners have submitted their objections before the 2nd respondent and opposed for acquiring their lands. The same was well considered and it was rejected after assigning valid reasons. Further, the present existing road width is not enough for free and easy vehicular movements due to enormous traffic which was increased several folds. Therefore, the lands of the petitioners were acquired for the public purpose. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 28. The very competent Additional Government Pleader Mr. M.S. Ramesh submits that the Government of India have announced scheme of four-laneing of National Highways road from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. For the said work formation, the private lands are being acquired under the provisions laid down in the National Highways Act. 28. The very competent Additional Government Pleader Mr. M.S. Ramesh submits that the Government of India have announced scheme of four-laneing of National Highways road from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. For the said work formation, the private lands are being acquired under the provisions laid down in the National Highways Act. For the said purpose, the Government of India has authorised the 2nd respondent herein for acquiring the said land. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has initiated land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the petitioners and others lands. Further, the petitioners objections were well considered and then rejected after assigning valid reasons stating that the petitioners property had been acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highways. Therefore, the above writ petition is not maintainable. 29. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides, this Court does not find any lapse on the side of the respondents for acquiring the petitioners' lands under the National Highways Act for widening the National Highways for formation of 4-laneing roads from Kashmir to Kanyakumari as it is for an essential public and national purpose. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.