JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioners have sought the quashing of the notification dated 15 September 2014 issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the Act') for acquisition of 23.5008 hectares of land for building (widening/up-gradation to 4-laning, etc.) maintenance, management and operation of Allahabad to Uttar Pradesh/Madhya Pradesh Border of National Highway No. 27 in the stretch of land from km 4.285 to km 45.627 in Allahabad district as also the declaration dated 19 March 2015 made under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3-D of the Act. 2. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the notification dated 19 March 2015 issued under Section 3-A of the Act for acquisition of 16.4160 hectares of land for building (widening/up-gradation to 4-laning, etc.) maintenance, management and operation of Allahabad to Uttar Pradesh/Madhya Pradesh Border of National Highway No. 27 in the stretch of land from km 4.285 to km 45.627 in Allahabad district as also the declaration dated 22 July 2015 made under sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act. 3. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the orders dated 16 February 2015 and 27 June 2016 by which the objections filed by them have been rejected by the Superintending Engineer on behalf of the Director General (Road Development) & Special Secretary. 4. It is stated that in response to the notifications issued under Section 3-A of the Act, the petitioners had filed objections that the demolition of the constructions standing on the land sought to be acquired for the Highway can be avoided by having a bypass. These objections were rejected by the Competent Authority, namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad by order dated 16 February 2015. 5. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ C-No. 19178 of 2016 to challenge the acquisition but at the time of hearing of the petition, a prayer was made that the representation filed by the petitioners regarding the acquisition of the land by the National Highway Authority of India for widening the road should be decided. This petition was disposed of on 23 May 2016 with a direction to the Chief Engineer (National Highways) PWD, to take a decision on the representation by means of a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks. 6. The representation filed by the petitioners has been rejected by order dated 27 June 2016. This petition was disposed of on 23 May 2016 with a direction to the Chief Engineer (National Highways) PWD, to take a decision on the representation by means of a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks. 6. The representation filed by the petitioners has been rejected by order dated 27 June 2016. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below : “Whereas, the Ministry has sanctioned work of four laning from Km.4.285 to Km. 44.520 of Allahabad-UP/MP Border Section of NH-27 for Rs. 774.57 Crore vide Sanction letter No. 37019/07/2013-NHDP-IVA dated 24.7.2015 based on the Detailed Project Report (DPR) prepared by the technical consultant to remove congestion and to ensure safe and smooth travel of Highway users. Whereas, this project is being executed by the Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways through its Project Implementation Unit (PIU), Varanasi (UP) under overall control of the Chief Engineer (NHDP-IVA) of this Ministry. Whereas, the petition submitted by the above-referred petitioners has been carefully examined in the light of Detailed Project Report (DPR) prepared by the Consultant, Right of Way (ROW) of NH, as certified by the State PWD, UP and Report of Project Director, Project Implementation Unit of this Ministry at Varanasi. Whereas, for fixing the alignment of Project Highway, due diligence was done by the Consultant, NH Wing of the State PWD of Uttar Pradesh and Ministry officials. Based on their recommendations, alignment for the proposed 4-laning was approved. Whereas, based on the land acquisition plan, process of land acquisition under National Highway Act, 1956 has been taken up and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organisation) Allahabad, has been appointed as Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under Section 3(a) of the said Act. Whereas, the process of land acquisition has been carried out as stipulated under the said Act and various objections received by CALA under Section 3(c) of the said Act were set aside vide its order dated 23.5.2015 (enclosed). Whereas, based on the report of the CALA, the Central Government issued Notification under Section 3(D) of the said Act for acquisition of lands on the project. Whereas, the forest clearance for the said project has also been received and the work has commenced with scheduled date of completion as 4.5.2018. Whereas, the removal of encroachment and acquisition of land for widening of NH-27 is as per law and in public interest. Whereas, the forest clearance for the said project has also been received and the work has commenced with scheduled date of completion as 4.5.2018. Whereas, the removal of encroachment and acquisition of land for widening of NH-27 is as per law and in public interest. Any change in alignment at this juncture would involve acquisition of additional land leading to delay in implementation of Project which would be against public interest with heavy financial burden on the Central Government. As such any change in alignment cannot be done at this stage. Therefore, the alignment for widening of road in Ghurpur Bazaar cannot be changed at this stage. Hence, the said petition for construction of Ghurpur Bypass by avoiding the demolition of shops/houses situated in the Ghurpur Bazaar of Allahabad District of Uttar Pradesh for widening & developing of NH-27 on Allahabad-Rewa Road in the State of Uttar Pradesh stands disposed off.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the National Highways Authority of India would have no difficulty if a bypass is provided on the Highway to save the demolition of the Ghurpur market and in fact, the project itself provides for three bypasses in the State of Madhya Pradesh as is clear in the Executive Summary Report. In effect, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that all necessary steps should have been taken for construction of a bypass on the Highway to avoid the Ghurpur Market in the same manner as bypass have been provided for on the Madhya Pradesh Side of the Highway. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the report dated 12 September 2016 submitted by the Tehsildar, Bara to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which suggest that a bypass should be constructed since many shops would be demolished. Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of India has, however, submitted that it is not feasible to construct a bypass to avoid Ghurpur Market and for this he has placed reliance on the averments made in the counter-affidavit as also the three supplementary counter-affidavits that have been filed. Learned counsel pointed out that the technical experts had examined the matter in detail and even the report does not indicate construction of a bypass for avoiding the Ghurpur market. Learned counsel pointed out that the technical experts had examined the matter in detail and even the report does not indicate construction of a bypass for avoiding the Ghurpur market. Learned counsel also submitted that not only the cost of construction of the bypass will be exorbitant, but much more land would have to be acquired. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The issue that arises for consideration before the Court is whether the land belonging to the petitioners should be left from acquisition for the Highway and a bypass should be constructed for avoiding any demolition. 10. It needs to be stated that about 40 hectares of land was sought to be acquired for maintenance/management and operation of the Allahabad to Uttar Pradesh/Madhya Pradesh Border Section of National Highway No. 27 for building (widening/up-gradation to 4-laning, etc.) maintenance, management and operation of Allahabad to Uttar Pradesh/Madhya Pradesh Border of National Highway. The Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) was entrusted the task for the development. The purpose was to upgrade the existing two lane to four-lane because it was found to be inadequate for the increasing traffic and to ensure uninterrupted traffic flow and better connectivity. It was found that most of the Manganwa-U.P. Border bypasses had enough Right of Way (ROW) for the purposes of the four-lane with a paved shoulder and it was only for villages Gangave, Garh and Katra falling in the Madhya Pradesh side of the Highway that three bypasses were recommended for this section because of dense built up area and unavailability of ROW. The relevant portion of the Executive Summary Report for this project is reproduced below : “MPRDC has been entrusted the work of rehabilitation and up gradation of existing two lane roads to four lane carriageway from Manganwa 98/2-Chakghat UP Border 46/6 to be executed through public-private-private-partnership on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer on DBFOT Pattern. MP Road Development Corporation has identified 51.6 Km of Mannganwa-UP Border NH-27 for Preparation of Feasibility of Report for four lane with paved shoulders. Presently the carriageway of Road is mostly two lanes. In view of the increasing traffic this would be inadequate. Hence to ensure uninterrupted traffic flow and better connectivity this project has been taken up. MP Road Development Corporation has identified 51.6 Km of Mannganwa-UP Border NH-27 for Preparation of Feasibility of Report for four lane with paved shoulders. Presently the carriageway of Road is mostly two lanes. In view of the increasing traffic this would be inadequate. Hence to ensure uninterrupted traffic flow and better connectivity this project has been taken up. 1.2 Project Length Initially the zero of the project was kept at Km 98/2 Manganwa (Rewa) as per RFP. However, during the very first visit of this road it was found that from Km 98/2 to 46/6 will from part of NH-27 & this project undertaken by MPRDC, Rewa Area. The portion from Ch 88+100, Ch 77+321 to 73+121 and Ch 67+381 to 63+081 has been development through three bypasses. The design project length is now Km 52.074. .......................... G) Traffic Congested Areas & Requirement of Bypasses Highway project along the Mannganwa-U.P. Border NH-27 were surveyed for every village & town and study of unavailability of ROW and possible traffic congestion was conducted for possible proposal of bypass. Most of this section of Manganwa-U.P. Border Bypass was found to have enough ROW for proposed four lane with paved shoulder. At village Gangave, Garh and Katra have heavy traffic congestion, dense built up area and unavailability of ROW, therefore, three bypasses are recommended to this section of highway. Also wherever required in towns and village area of this section on NH-27 will be provided service land with pedestal/cattle underpass. Figure 12- Aerial View of Bypass 1. Gangave bypass from Ch 88+100 to Ch 85+000 (3.10 Km) 2. Garh bypass from Ch 77+321 to Ch 73+121 (4.20 Km) 3. Katra bypass from Ch 67+381 to Ch 63+081 (4.30 Km).” 11. In the first Supplementary Counter-affidavit, it has been stated that though the Ghurpur Market stretch is about 300 metres only with 103 structures but the petitioners have included three revenue villages namely Ghurpur village, Chaksemra and Semrakalmana as a result of which number of structures is more. It has also been stated that even if, as stated by the petitioners, the stretch of market is about 2.6 Kms, only 243 structures would be there which would mean that in the remaining 2.4 Kms, there are only 140 structures. Thus, the density for the remaining area is very low. It has also been stated that even if, as stated by the petitioners, the stretch of market is about 2.6 Kms, only 243 structures would be there which would mean that in the remaining 2.4 Kms, there are only 140 structures. Thus, the density for the remaining area is very low. It has also been stated that it is not viable to have a bypass just to avoid partial demolition of the structures. 12. Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Counter-affidavit gives details of the area proposed to be acquired in the aforesaid three villages as also the number of structures and the same is as follows : “8. That as per the acquisition notification the total area acquired in the three revenue villages described in para above is as under : Sl. No. Name of Village Proposed Acquisition to achieve 25m ROW (m) Total Area Acquired 1 Ghurpur 0-4.5 m 0.43 2 Chaksemra 0-4.5 m 0.13 3 Semrakalmana 0-4.5 m 0.89 Total 1.45 Total number of affected structures in these villages are as below : Sl. No. Name of Village No. of affected Structures/Shops awarded by SLAO Extent of Damage in number of structures <1m 1-1.5m 1.5-2.5 m 2.5-3.0m 3.0m- 3.5m- >3.5m- 1. Ghurpur 134 32 20 35 11 14 22 2. Chak Semra 13 0 0 1 4 0 8 3. Semra Kalmana 24 0 1 1 3 11 8 171 32 21 37 18 25 38 13. In paragraphs 9 and 10 it has been stated that sufficient Right of Way is available for the proposed widening of four lanes and the said paragraphs are reproduced : “9. That the length of the actual Ghurpur Market which is congested is only about 200m. There are 103 numbers of structures/shops falling in this stretch of 200m length. The market as per the petitioner’s submission has been told to be in about 2.6 Km length. Total 243 number of structures are being partially affected in 2.6 Km length. However, in 200m length, only 103 structures are being partially affected. Therefore, in remaining 2.4 Km length only 140 structures are coming. This implies that the density of shops in remaining 2.4 Km is very less and the shops are staggered in either side of the road. Providing bypass to avoid just 200m length in order to avoid partial demolition of structures may not be even cost effective for the project. 10. This implies that the density of shops in remaining 2.4 Km is very less and the shops are staggered in either side of the road. Providing bypass to avoid just 200m length in order to avoid partial demolition of structures may not be even cost effective for the project. 10. That the road geometrics are proper in the Ghurpur bazaar area (predominantly straight). Accordingly, for the proposed widening to four-lanes 25m ROW width is sufficient to cater the cross section requirement. Moreover, in the present condition, due to constricted ROW and improper drainage, the situation of traffic congestion is common and storm-water also stagnates. Upon four laning, these problems may be eradicated due to construction of proper drains and proper width availability for traffic movement.” Parameters Proposed alignment Option-I Widening along the existing alignment Option-II Short Alignment beside Minor Canal Option-III Long Alignment Length Along the road 3.00 Km 3.00 Km Start Point - Ch. 14.500 Ch. 12.500 End Point - Ch. 17.500 Ch.21.500 Type 4-lane with drains 4-lane with service roads on either side 4-lane with service roads on either side. Extent of Acquisition 1.4 Ha 16.00 Ha (45m acquisition in the Greenfield alignment in a length of 3.00km) 16.00 Ha (45m acquisition in the Greenfield alignment in a length of 3.00km) Land use pattern of the acquired land Primarily used in road. Partly residential/shops Agriculture/residential Agricultural Extent of demolition of structures Partial demolition due to limited acquisition Heavy demolition Less demolition Impact on Chitrakoot/Mirzapur bound Traffic (on NH-76 and NH-76-E. No impact No impact Will have adverse impact. Both, irzapur/Chitrakoot (6000-7000 PCU) may not use this alignment due to additional haulage of about 5.00 Km and tend to use the existing alignment whatsoever. Impact on Gauhaniya Bypass No impact No impact Severe impact. Will make the Gauhaniya Bypass defunct. Requirement of CD Structures/Under- passes No requirement Tentatively 4 VUPs, 2 Minor Bridges, 2 PUPs, Culverts as per requirement Tentatively 4 VUPs, 1 Minor Bridge, 3 PUPs, Culverts as per requirement Tentatively 4 VUPs, 1 Minor Bridge, 3 PUPs, Culverts as per requirement Will improve Will have adverse impact Will have adverse Expected financial implication due to Land Acquisition Rs. 9.84 crore About 50 crore More than 100 crore 14. 9.84 crore About 50 crore More than 100 crore 14. In the second supplementary counter-affidavit, it has been stated that out of 134 persons affected in Ghurpur Market, 105 represented before the District Magistrate, Allahabad that no bypass should be constructed in Ghurpur Market and that the petition had been instituted by four persons who had actually encroached Government land. Copy of the representation has also been enclosed with the supplementary counter-affidavit. 15. In the third supplementary counter-affidavit, detail facts on the basis of a comprehensive study of Ghurpur Market conducted by expert Engineers has been referred to. This study had been conducted to find out whether a bypass should be provided. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit are reproduced below : “4. That the National Highway No. 27 (hereinafter referred to as NH-27 in short) originates from Allahabad City, near Beharana Crossing and continues upto Mangawan, (MP), stretch from 0.00 Km to 4.285 Kms has been developed to a four lane facility by National Highway Authority of India as part of the new cable stayed bridge (Dr.Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Bridge), popularly known as New Naini Bridge. 5. That at 3 kms, there is major intersection of two NH-27 and NH-76E i.e. Allahabad-Mangawan and Allahabad-Mirzapur respectively, at 19 kms there is again a major intersection of NH-27 and NH-76 i.e. Allahabad-Mangawan and Allahabad-Chitrakoot/Banda Road. 6. That the stretch from 3 kms to 18.450 kms is overlapping stretch of two NHs there is market of length 200M in between 14.390 Km to 15.370 km known as Ghoorpur Market comprising three revenue villages i.e. Ghoopuur, Chak Semra and Semra Kalmana and there is an existing Railway Over Bridge (ROB) in between 12.100 kms and 13.100 kms. 7. That the complete study of the alignment for bypass around Ghoorpur may be considered only in the left hand side (LHS) owing to heavy in habitation, proposed DFCCIL Corridor and start of Khadir Area of Yamuna River in the right hand side (RHS), however, in the LHS two possibilities have been explored and have been compared to the present proposal i.e. widening along the existing alignment. Parameters Proposed alignment Option-I Widening along the existing alignment Option-II Short Alignment beside Minor Canal Option-III Long Alignment Length Along the road 3.00 Km 3.00 Km Start Point - Ch. 14.500 Ch. 12.500 End Point - Ch. Parameters Proposed alignment Option-I Widening along the existing alignment Option-II Short Alignment beside Minor Canal Option-III Long Alignment Length Along the road 3.00 Km 3.00 Km Start Point - Ch. 14.500 Ch. 12.500 End Point - Ch. 17.500 Ch.21.500 Type 4-lane with drains 4-lane with service roads on either side 4-lane with service roads on either side. Extent of Acquisition 1.4 Ha 16.00 Ha (45m acquisition in the Greenfield alignment in a length of 3.00km) 16.00 Ha (45m acquisition in the Greenfield alignment in a length of 3.00km) Land use pattern of the acquired land Primarily used in road. Partly residential/shops Agriculture/residential Agricultural Extent of demolition of structures Partial demolition due to limited acquisition Heavy demolition Less demolition Impact on Chitrakoot/Mirzapur bound Traffic (on NH-76 and NH-76-E. No impact No impact Will have adverse impact. Both, irzapur/Chitrakoot (6000-7000 PCU) may not use this alignment due to additional haulage of about 5.00 Km and tend to use the existing alignment whatsoever. Impact on Gauhaniya Bypass No impact No impact Severe impact. Will make the Gauhaniya Bypass defunct. Requirement of CD Structures/Under- passes No requirement Tentatively 4 VUPs, 2 Minor Bridges, 2 PUPs, Culverts as per requirement Tentatively 4 VUPs, 1 Minor Bridge, 3 PUPs, Culverts as per requirement Tentatively 4 VUPs, 1 Minor Bridge, 3 PUPs, Culverts as per requirement Will improve Will have adverse impact Will have adverse Expected financial implication due to Land Acquisition Rs. 9.84 crore About 50 crore More than 100 crore 8. That proposed Option-II will pass through Bongi village and would affect the village habitation. Bypass will require 450 metres of transition approach at the start and end locations. The land width requirement at approach is 45 metres i.e. at least 12.5 metres acquisition on both sides of the existing road thereby causing excessive demolition of structures (about 95 residential buildings/storage units) in addition to the demolition of structures in the Greenfield portion (which is also substantial because the width of land being acquired is 45 metres. The land width requirement at approach is 45 metres i.e. at least 12.5 metres acquisition on both sides of the existing road thereby causing excessive demolition of structures (about 95 residential buildings/storage units) in addition to the demolition of structures in the Greenfield portion (which is also substantial because the width of land being acquired is 45 metres. Although, it will bypass the market portion but the extent of demolition required for constructing this bypass is enormous and unwarranted, moreover the embankment constructions will require huge quantity of top soil which is not at all available in the adjoining areas and as such the same has to be transported from a very far distance which is neither practical nor feasible and the same will be against the ecological balance. Since, it takes almost 500 to thousands of years to create an inch of top soil. 9. That the proposed Option-III will not only bypass Ghoorpur Market but also bypass Gohaniya and Budawa Markets. The alignment requires very less demolition and passes through agricultural land. Extent of land acquisition is enormous which will also adversely impact the livelihood of numerous farmers (some of whom may be deprived of their entire land holding). Moreover, this alignment will severely impact the traffic on NH-76/NH-76 E. As per the last traffic survey conducted, traffic at Km 16.00 i.e. combined traffic of NH-27 and NH-76/76E was 16558 PCU and that at Km 43 was 10976 PCU which means that 5582 PCU is the traffic being diverted from NH-27 to NH-76. Following this alignment will tend to segregate the Mirzapur/Chitrakoot bound traffic from the bypass due to additional haulage and such traffic will keep on following the existing road thereby defeating the purpose of bypass around Ghoorpur. This alignment will also completely defunct the proposed bypass for Gauhaniya village in between Km 17.800 to Km 20.100 on RHs, which is already under construction. 10. That development along the existing alignment i.e. Option-I is considered to be the best alternative keeping in view the functional aspect, speed of construction, cost implication and overall justice to the road users. This alignment will also completely defunct the proposed bypass for Gauhaniya village in between Km 17.800 to Km 20.100 on RHs, which is already under construction. 10. That development along the existing alignment i.e. Option-I is considered to be the best alternative keeping in view the functional aspect, speed of construction, cost implication and overall justice to the road users. In case the road is developed along the existing alignment, the storm water drainage of the market portion will improve substantially due to provision of road side drains (presently market faces heavy rainwater stagnation due to lack of drains), which will also increase the level of service of the road in the Ghoorpur Market. The covered drains will act as footpaths for the pedestrians thereby increasing safety.” 16. An Intervention Application has also been filed on behalf of 89 persons stating that 95% of the residents favour the widening of the Highway and that only occupants who have encroached land adjacent to the National Highway No. 27 have opposed the project of conversion of the two lane Highway to a four lane Highway. It has been stated that petitioner No. 1 has constructed shops on the PWD land adjacent to the Highway. It has also been stated that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have also illegally constructed shops adjacent to the Highway and that petitioner No. 5 had neither signed the Vakalatnama nor had he authorized any person for filing the petition. It has also been stated in paragraph-26 that most of the residents of Ghurpur Market have already demolished portions of their houses, shops and have moved the applications for receiving the compensation. 17. The respondents have also placed a chart to indicate that substantial amount of compensation has already been disbursed to the land-owners. It has also been stated in paragraph-26 that most of the residents of Ghurpur Market have already demolished portions of their houses, shops and have moved the applications for receiving the compensation. 17. The respondents have also placed a chart to indicate that substantial amount of compensation has already been disbursed to the land-owners. The details are as follows: Village: Chak Ghurpur Land Structure Award Amount (E) 19137603.86 35160461.09 Disbursed Amount (E) 27339210 140 No. of persons to whom compensation is to be disbursed No. of perso 691 140 No. of persons to whom compensation has been disbursed 228 82 Village: Chak Semra Land Structure Award Amount (E) 917806.83 7514915.93 Disbursed Amount (E) 7184459 36 No. of persons to whom compensation is to be disbursed 60 36 No. of persons to whom compensation has been disbursed 0 25 Village: Semra Kalmana Land Structure Award Amount (E) 19533202.27 16312970.26 Disbursed Amount (E) 10301250 No. of persons to whom compensation is to be disbursed 287 18 No. of persons to whom compensation has been disbursed 71 12 18. The facts narrated above, clearly indicate that the congested area of Ghurpur Market is just 300 metres and there are only 103 structures, some of which are standing on encroached portions of the existing road and except for a few persons all have not only agreed to receive compensation but have also appreciated the acquisition of land for widening of the four lane road. The report has been prepared by technical experts who, after a careful consideration, have proposed only three bypasses on the stretch of the Highway falling in Madhya Pradesh. This is for the reason that there is dense built up area and heavy traffic congestion on the Right of Way. However, this is not the position in regard to the Ghurpur market and, therefore, no bypass has been proposed. The experts also conducted an exercise to determine whether a bypass for the Ghurpur market would be feasible. They have opined that only on the left hand side, a bypass is possible and for this they have considered two options. One is a short alignment while the other is a long alignment. The experts also conducted an exercise to determine whether a bypass for the Ghurpur market would be feasible. They have opined that only on the left hand side, a bypass is possible and for this they have considered two options. One is a short alignment while the other is a long alignment. It has been stated that the short alignment will pass through Bongi village and will affect village habitation and although it will bypass the market portion but the extent of demolition required for constructing this bypass would be enormous and unwarranted. The cost would also be about 50 crores as compared to 9.84 crores compensation which would have to be disbursed if no bypass is constructed. The second option will not only bypass the Ghurpur market but would also bypass Gauhaniya market. This would, however, require extensive acquisition of agricultural land and would also severely impact the traffic on NH-76. The cost would also be more than 100 crores. It has, therefore, been stated that Option-I which is not to have any bypass but only partial demolition is the best alternative. 19. It is for the technical persons to examine such matters and when the report itself suggests only three bypasses, there is no reason for the Court to interfere at the instance of very few persons, ignoring the larger public interest and direct for construction of a bypass. In this connection it will be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh Gill and others v. State of Punjab and others, (2015) 8 SCC 345 , wherein the Supreme Court observed : “We also find that there have been due deliberations by the competent authorities deciding upon the realignment of the road leading to proposed Missing Link-II. We do not find any arbitrariness in the exercise done at the highest level inasmuch as the Chief Minister himself approved the revised plans. It is not the function of this Court to compare the Missing Link-II with alternate route suggested by the appellants and to come to the conclusion which out of the two would be more appropriate.” 20. The chart regarding payment of compensation would also indicate that about 46% of the total amount awarded for land structure had already been disbursed. 21. The chart regarding payment of compensation would also indicate that about 46% of the total amount awarded for land structure had already been disbursed. 21. The report dated 12 September 2016, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners is of no benefit to the petitioners. The Tehsildar, at best could have stated that some construction would be required to be demolished if the land was acquired but certainly he could not have, as a non-technical person, given any suggestion for constructing a bypass. The technical report clearly indicates that it would not be feasible to have a bypass to avoid the Ghurpur Market. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners does not call for any interference. There is, therefore, no good reason to quash the notifications issued under Sections 3-A and 3-D of the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.