JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned Notification issued by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.32597/02/D2, dated 28.05.2004, which was published in Tamil Daily on 04.06.2004, by the third respondent and also subsequent Notification issued by the fifth respondent, in Na.Ka.No.D2/32597/2002, dated 10.09.2004, which was published in Tamil Daily on 18.09.2004 and consequently, direct the respondents to return back the balance vacant area in Re-Survey No.213/1 and Re-Survey No.233/2 of Viraloor Village to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land in Re-Survey No.213/1 measuring an extent of 0.04 ares and also in Re-Survey No.233/2D, measuring an extent of 0.38.0 ares. He became the owner as per Partition Deed, dated 12.07.1995. The Patta was issued in favour of the petitioner in Patta No.D-2003/399, dated 18.12.2003. 3. The third respondent issued a Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on 10.11.2003, with an intention to acquire 15 sq. mts. of land, which is equivalent to 0.00.5 Hectares in R.S.No.213/1, Viraloor Village and also in R.S.No.233/2, total extent of 0.72.5 Hectares, equivalent to 7262 sq. mts., from one Thangamani, W/o. Arumugam Chettiar. Notice under Section 3-C was not served on the petitioner. 4. The third respondent published Notification under Section 3-A of the Act and publication under Section 3-A(3) in the name of Thangamani, W/o. Arumugam Chettiar. Notice under Section 3-C of the Act was not served on the petitioner. On coming to know about these proceedings, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2003 to the second respondent through his counsel. The petitioner has also sent reminders to the respondents. On 04.06.2004, the third respondent issued a correction notice stating that the Government intend to acquire 3347 sq. mts. of land, which is equivalent to 0.33.5 Hectares in R.S.No.213/1 of Viraloor Village, modifying the earlier Notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Act regarding the acquisition of 15 sq. mts. of land in the said survey number. Subsequently, the third respondent published a Notification of Declaration under Sections 3-D and 3-G(3) of the Act on 10.09.2004, with respect to R.S.No.233/2, Viraloor Village, in the name of Thangamani, W/o. Arumugam Chettiar, to appear for enquiry. 5. The petitioner made another representation on 13.10.2004. mts. of land in the said survey number. Subsequently, the third respondent published a Notification of Declaration under Sections 3-D and 3-G(3) of the Act on 10.09.2004, with respect to R.S.No.233/2, Viraloor Village, in the name of Thangamani, W/o. Arumugam Chettiar, to appear for enquiry. 5. The petitioner made another representation on 13.10.2004. Without considering the same, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent on 25.05.2007 to receive the compensation amount in respect of the acquired land. The petitioner gave a representation on 19.07.2007 and no reply was given. Instead by way of another letter by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner was asked to receive compensation in respect of the land acquired in R.S.No.213/1. 6. On account of repeated representations of the petitioner, the fourth respondent along with other officials visited the land in question and conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the request made by the petitioner is genuine and submitted a report in Ref.No.2645/2005 to that effect to the second respondent. The petitioner applied for copy of the said report under Right to Information Act, but the fourth respondent did not furnish the copy of the said report. 7. At present, four-way track was laid on the eastern end of S.Nos.233/D, 233/2D and 213/1 of Viraloor Village. Nearly, 80 cents of land was acquired and utilised by the Government without following the due process of law and the balance area more than 1 acre of land in the survey numbers were kept idle and not utilised for public purpose. Since the petitioner is not possessing any other land, he needs the balance area for continuing his agricultural process. 8. The respondents have acquired the lands without adhering to the valid provisions envisaged under the Act. The act of the respondents is against the rule of law and the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed. The respondents must acquire only the required extent of land. 9. In the present case, the respondents have acquired excess land depriving the constitutional right of the petitioner over his property. The respondents have not issued any declaration under Section 3-D of the Act with respect to R.S.No.213/1 of Viraloor Village. 10. The respondents did not show the petitioner as owner in respect of the acquired land and did not intimate the petitioner, who is the owner of acquired land. The respondents have not issued any declaration under Section 3-D of the Act with respect to R.S.No.213/1 of Viraloor Village. 10. The respondents did not show the petitioner as owner in respect of the acquired land and did not intimate the petitioner, who is the owner of acquired land. The property in R.S.No.233/2 was sub-divided even before the acquisition proceedings as S.No.233/2D and no Notification was issued in respect of the property in S.No.233/2D. 11. For the above reasons, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the acquisition proceedings in R.S.Nos.213/1 and 233/2, Viraloor Village and direct the respondents to return the balance land to the petitioner. 12. The contentions of the respondents: The Government of India has taken development of various National Highways to cater the needs of increasing traffic. Under the policy, the project of four laning in Trichy - Madurai stretch of NH 45B from K.M.0/0 to K.M.125/0 was taken up. After a detailed report prepared by the consultancy/concessionaire, recommending the proposal for improvement of location at S.F.No.213/1 and 233/2D of NH-45B and new [alignment] Bye-pass to Viralimalai are joining in the location, there is a need for junction improvement. Accordingly, necessary Land Plan Schedule [LPS] was prepared and furnished to the second respondent, who was appointed as Acquisition Authority. 13. Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act was published by the Central Government in G.O.I.No.1007, S.O.No.1285 (E), dated 10.11.2003 and also in G.O.I.No.375, S.O.No.492 (E), dated 13.04.2004. The lands in question and other lands were mentioned in the Notifications. Description of the land covered by the Notification was also published in Tamil Newspaper viz., Dinamalar and in English Newspaper, viz., The Indian Express by the second respondent as a public notice calling for objections if any from the affected persons interested in the lands to be filed within a period of 21 days. The second respondent fixed the date of hearing on 26.12.2003 for hearing objections and heard the parties on that date, who have raised objections. The petitioner's brother, Murugesan, having received the notice of hearing has attended the enquiry on 26.12.2003 and furnished their claim. After perusing the documents and examining the claim, the second respondent dismissed the claim vide proceedings in R.C.D2/32597/02, dated 26.02.2004. 14. The petitioner's brother, Murugesan, having received the notice of hearing has attended the enquiry on 26.12.2003 and furnished their claim. After perusing the documents and examining the claim, the second respondent dismissed the claim vide proceedings in R.C.D2/32597/02, dated 26.02.2004. 14. Pursuant to the Notification issued under Sections 3-A(1) and 3-C(2) of the Act, Notification under Section 3-D(1) of the Act was published in G.O.I.No.546, S.O.No.703(E), dated 18.06.2004 and substance of the Notification was published in English daily, viz., The Hindu and Tamil Daily, viz., Dinathanthi, on 18.09.2004 as per Section 3-G(3) of the Act. The owners and interested persons were called upon to attend hearing on 18.09.2004 before the second respondent either personally or through Agent or Legal Practitioner. After Notification under Section 3-D of the Act, the lands are vested with the Central Government free from all encumbrances as per Section 3-D(2) of the Act. 15. The petitioner's land is located in the existing Viralimalai Road and the new Bye-pass joining spot and the land is set apart for junction improvement and hence required for public purpose. The plan and design of National Highway are determined based on the ground geometric and not based on the availability of the land. As per DPR prepared by the Project Consultants, the required land has been acquired in the location. The question of de-notification sought by the petitioner does not arise and there is no provision in the Act in this regard. 16. The second respondent passed an award, vide proceedings in D2/32597/2002 (Viralur), dated 31.05.2006, awarding compensation of Rs.1,12,896/-. The compensation amount will be paid as per Sections 3-G(1) & 2 of the Act and possession will be taken. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, he can invoke Arbitration Proceedings before the first respondent under Section 3-G(5) of the Act. 17. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 18. The compensation amount will be paid as per Sections 3-G(1) & 2 of the Act and possession will be taken. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, he can invoke Arbitration Proceedings before the first respondent under Section 3-G(5) of the Act. 17. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that, (a) no notice was issued to the petitioner, who is the owner of the property acquired; (b) the objection of the petitioner was not considered; (c) the respondents have not utilised the entire land of the petitioner for the purpose, it was acquired; (d) alternate poramboke land is available next to the petitioner's land, which can be utilised for junction development project and one acre of the petitioner's land can be released; and (e) in the Notification, Sub-division No.233/2D of the petitioner's property was not mentioned and it is mentioned only as S.No.233/2. Hence, the proceedings are illegal. 19. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments: (i) V.K.M. Kattha Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Others [ 2013 (9) SCC 338 ], wherein in paragraph 10, it has been held as follows: "10. In the case on hand, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 21.12.2005, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.12.2006 and the award was passed on 15.07.2007. Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed by the appellant Company on 20.08.2007 i.e. within 5 weeks of the passing of the award. It is the assertion of the appellant Company that possession of the said land is still vested with them. Taking note of the above factual scenario and delay in filing the writ petitions, such as 13 years, 21 years, 32 years and 2 years after taking over possession, hence, in the light of the fact that the appellant Company has filed the writ petition within a reasonable time, namely, within 5 weeks of the passing of the award, we are of the view that all the four decisions referred to and relied on by the High Court (set out in paras 9.1 to 9.4 above) are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. On this ground itself, the impugned order dismissing the writ petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court cannot be simply dismissed on the ground of delay or laches or filed after passing of the award. The said issue depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and in view of the fact that the appellant has approached the High Court within a reasonable time, it is but proper for the High Court to go into the merits of the claim of the appellant." (ii) Shanmuga Arts, Science, Technology and Research Academy Vs. Union of India and others [W.P.(MD) No.4377 of 2008, dated 17.11.2008], wherein in paragraph 15, it has been held as follows: "15. Whereas by way of torpedoing and pulverizing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the third respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that paragraph No.8 of the Honourable Apex Court's judgment should not be read in isolation and it should be read in conjunction with the observations made in paragraph No.5 of it, which is also extracted as under: "... So far as the question whether the impugned notification meets the requirement of Section 3-A(1) of the Act regarding giving brief description of land is concerned, we have already shown that even though plot numbers of lands in respect of each mouza are given, different prices of land are acquired either as whole or in part. Wherever 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 would be unable to understand the impact of acquisition or to raise any objection about 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 stature requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. In our view, the impugned notification fails to meet the statutory mandate. It is vague. It is settled law that where a stature requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. In our view, the impugned notification fails to meet the statutory mandate. It is vague. The least that is required in such cases is that the acquisition notification should let the person whose land is sought to be acquired know what he is going to lose. The impugned notification in this case is, therefore, not in accordance with law."" 20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent relied on the following Judgments: (i) S. Gomathi Vs. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), National Highways Scheme, Kovilpatti and others [W.P.(MD)No.3361 of 2008, dated 07.10.2009], wherein in paragraph 5, it has been held as follows: "5. The relief sought for by the petitioner is thoroughly misconceived. The petitioner having not questioned the land acquisition proceedings cannot seek for the present relief. That apart, the lands in question have been acquired for the purpose of the National Highways Four Lane Scheme. Therefore, the land acquired for such public purpose, could be put to use for any of the purposes for the purpose required under the scheme. It has been further stated by the respondents that the land is not to be given to any private parties." (ii) N. Rajagopal Vs. Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others [W.P.Nos.356, 358 and 359 of 2004, dated 28.06.2007], wherein in paragraphs 9 and 10, it has been held as follows:- "9. In this case, as already stated, as the plan schedule was duly prepared and approved by the competent authorities, the project consultant, who are more informed and more competent persons to prepare the lay out. Neither the petitioner nor the Court is having so much of know-how about the correctness of the project prepared by the project consultant and approved by the National Highways Authorities. In the absence of any allegation about the mala fide exercise of power or demonstratively illegal violation of the guidelines, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the expert's decision. In the absence of any allegation about the mala fide exercise of power or demonstratively illegal violation of the guidelines, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the expert's decision. The guidelines are not rigid in nature so that in all areas the acquisition proceedings for widening of the road has to be done only on either side of the road equally. If the lands are acquired only on the one side of the road so as to have a perfect alignment and it does not require acquisition of land on both sides, the authority can very well acquire the land depending upon the requirement and as per the project report for the formation of the road. Hence, this contention is also liable to be rejected. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I am not able to concur with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed." 21. I have considered all the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 22. The land in question belonging to the petitioner was acquired for four laning in Trichy - Madurai stretch of NH 45B. The detailed plan was prepared and as per plan, required lands were identified and acquisition proceedings were initiated by the second respondent and the procedure as contemplated in the Act had been followed. The objection of the petitioner is that no notice was given to him. But, the petitioner also states that his objections were not considered by the second respondent. These contradictory statements reveal that the petitioner knew about the acquisition and has filed his objection. The sixth respondent has stated that one Murugesan, the brother of the petitioner, personally appeared for hearing and filed his objection. The said objections were considered and rejected by the second respondent. Hence, the contention of the petitioner has no force. 23. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in R.S.No.233 was sub-divided and the property of the petitioner was given R.S.No.233/2D and patta was issued to him. In spite of the same, the second respondent did not mention the said survey number in the Notification and publication. 23. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in R.S.No.233 was sub-divided and the property of the petitioner was given R.S.No.233/2D and patta was issued to him. In spite of the same, the second respondent did not mention the said survey number in the Notification and publication. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in view of the Judgments relied on by him, the acquisition proceedings should be quashed. 24. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that amendment was issued on 13.04.2004. In view of amendment had been issued as early as on 13.04.2004 and the petitioner is also seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of R.S.Nos.213/1 and 233/2 only, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-mentioning of R.S.No.233/2D vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings, is untenable and unsustainable. 25. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that alternate Government Poramboke land adjacent to the petitioner's land is available and the same could be acquired, cannot be entertained. The lands are acquired as per the plan prepared by the Expert Committee and Courts cannot sit over the opinion of Expert Committee. The petitioner's land acquired is being used for junction improvement in the project of four laning. This is a public purpose and for that purpose only, the land was acquired. The two Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent squarely apply to the facts of this case. The petitioner has filed his objection in respect of acquisition proceedings of his agricultural lands. In view of this fact, the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not advance the case of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.