JUDGMENT 1. These intra court appeals are directed against order dated 28.5.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby pending disposal of the writ petition, the appellant is directed to file an undertaking to bear the entire cost of acquisition and cost of shifting of the road as proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 20.11.17, while allowing the objections raised by the appellant against the acquisition of land for the purpose of widening/conversion of existing four lanes into six lanes of National Highway No.79, 79A and 76. 2. The facts relevant are that in the first instance, a notification dated 24.11.12 was issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short the Act) declaring its intention to acquire the land for the purpose of widening/six laning etc. of National Highway No.79, from 63 + 600 km. to 156 + 600 km. (Kishangarh Chittorgarh Section) in district Bhilwara in the State of Rajasthan. The appellant s land comprising khasra no. 4978/449, 450, 4980/451, 4981/464, 4982/470, 4983/515 and 4985/517 measuring 8100 square meter situated at Gulabpura, Tehsil Hurda, district Bhilwara, was also proposed to be acquired. The appellant filed objections against the acquisition of the land for the purpose specified. The objections raised by the appellant were sustained and accordingly, the competent authority vide order dated 21.6.13 directed the Project Director, National Highway Authority, Udaipur to shift the alignment of the road and thus, the lands of the appellant were excluded from the acquisition proceedings. 3. The order dated 21.6.13 passed by the competent authority virtually de-notifying the lands of the appellant from acquisition was not challenged by the appellant and the same attained finality. As per the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), at that time, it was decided not to carry on construction work over the land of the appellant. 4. Later, a notification dated 21.8.17 was issued under Section 3A of the Act for the purpose of acquisition of lands for building (widening/six laning etc.) maintenance management and operation of National Highway No.79, 79A and 76 in the stretch of km. 63.600 to km. 156.600 (Gulabpura to Chittorgarh section). By way of the said notification, the appellant s land comprising arazi No.4978/449, 4979/450, 4980/451, 4981/464, 4982/470, 4983/515, 4984/516 and 4985/517 situated at village Gulabpura was again proposed to be acquired. 63.600 to km. 156.600 (Gulabpura to Chittorgarh section). By way of the said notification, the appellant s land comprising arazi No.4978/449, 4979/450, 4980/451, 4981/464, 4982/470, 4983/515, 4984/516 and 4985/517 situated at village Gulabpura was again proposed to be acquired. The appellant filed objections to the proposed acquisition. According to NHAI, the competent authority without waiting for the reply from NHAI and without extending an opportunity of hearing to it, proceeded to allow the objections of the appellant vide order dated 20.11.17 and directed the Project Director, NHAI, Bhilwara to comply with the order dated 13.6.13 earlier passed and issue amended notification under Section 3A and declaration under Section 3D of the Act accordingly. 5. The legality of the order dated 20.11.17 passed by the competent authority is challenged by the NHAI before this court by way of Writ Petition No.2382/18. Yet another writ petition being No.2071/18 challenging the said order is filed by the writ petitioner Kartar Singh Rathore as well. 6. On 28.5.17, the learned Single Judge of this court being prima facie of the opinion that the direction of changing the alignment or shifting the center point of the road cannot be given by the Land Acquisition Officer, passed an interim order in the following terms: It is apparent that the same has been done pursuant to the objections and at the instance of the respondent No.1. Hence, the respondent No.1 is directed to file an undertaking to bear the entire cost of acquisition and cost of shifting of the road, as proposed vide order impugned. The undertaking aforesaid is warranted only to ascertain bonafides of Respondent No.1. The same shall not be conclusive and sufficient to support the order impugned, which shall nevertheless be tested on its own legality. Meanwhile, the National Highway Authority of India shall file an affidavit in the Court, while giving its copy to the respondent No.1, informing about the approximate additional expenditure, including the cost of the additional land and structures thereupon, if the order dated 20.11.2017, changing the alignment is given effect to. Hence, these appeals. 7. Meanwhile, the National Highway Authority of India shall file an affidavit in the Court, while giving its copy to the respondent No.1, informing about the approximate additional expenditure, including the cost of the additional land and structures thereupon, if the order dated 20.11.2017, changing the alignment is given effect to. Hence, these appeals. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the legality of the order impugned dated 20.11.17 passed by the competent authority is yet to be examined by the learned Single Judge and thus, while pre judging the issue in favour of the respondents, the order impugned passed directing the appellant to give an undertaking to bear the entire cost of acquisition and cost of shifting of the road as proposed by the aforesaid order passed by the competent authority, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was well within its rights to raise objections against the proposed acquisition and if after due consideration, the objections raised on behalf of the appellant are sustained by the competent authority and directions have been issued to the NHAI to change the alignment or shifting the center point, the appellant cannot be compelled to bear the cost of acquisition and cost of shifting of the road. Learned counsel would submit that if the acquisition of the land as proposed is not found feasible or in the public interest, the competent authority is empowered to pass the appropriate order even directing exclusion of the land from acquisition and thus, merely because the change of the alignment or the shifting of the road is directed at the instance of the appellant, it cannot be penalised. Learned counsel submitted that even at the time of final disposal of the writ petitions, if the order passed by the competent authority de-notifying the appellant s land is sustained, no directions could be issued by this court directing the appellant to bear the cost of change of alignment or shifting of the road. Learned counsel submitted that NHAI has quantified the cost of the acquisition and shifting of the road at Rs. 7.43 crores and the appellant is not in position to give undertaking as directed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel submitted that NHAI has quantified the cost of the acquisition and shifting of the road at Rs. 7.43 crores and the appellant is not in position to give undertaking as directed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that on account of failure of the appellant to give the undertaking, it cannot be deprived of its right to defend the petition and thus, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI submitted that the competent authority has no jurisdiction whatsoever to direct the NHAI to change the alignment or shift the center point of the road and thus, the writ petition preferred by the NHAI is bound to be allowed. However, learned counsel submitted that the directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge just to ascertain the bonafides of the appellant herein, however, the NHAI has no objection if the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant to give the undertaking in the terms indicated is set aside but, looking to the urgency of the project, the petition pending before the learned Single Judge needs to be decided expeditiously. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, in the first instance, the objections raised by the appellant against the acquisition of the land in question, as proposed vide notification dated 24.11.12, were allowed by the competent authority vide order dated 21.6.13 and the Project Director, NHAI, was directed to shift the alignment of the road by eliminating the proposed turn between chain age 64 and 65 of National Highway No.79 from Khari River Bridge to nearby the factory of appellant, by making the highway straight. The legality of the order passed by the competent authority was not challenged by NHAI and virtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3C of the Act, the same attained finality. The legality of the order passed by the competent authority was not challenged by NHAI and virtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3C of the Act, the same attained finality. By the order impugned in the writ petitions pending disposal before the learned Single Judge, the objections raised have not been decided by the competent authority on its own merits after consideration afresh, rather, the directions have been issued to comply with the order dated 21.6.13 passed by the competent authority while deciding the objections raised by the appellant, of course, in respect of the self same land, but in respect of the notification issued for the purpose of widening/six laning of the portion of National Highway No.79. Certainly, it remains a debatable question as to whether the competent authority who has no technical expertise, is empowered to issue the directions for changing the alignment or shifting the center point of the road. But then, the legality of the order passed by the competent authority has to be examined by the court on merits, after due consideration of the rival submissions. By virtue of provisions of Section 3C of the Act, the appellant, a person interested in the land, was entitled to raise the objections against the proposed acquisition and its objections having been sustained by the competent authority, without adjudication of the legality of the order, in our considered opinion, at this stage, the appellant cannot be insisted upon to give the undertaking as directed by the order under appeal. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge while issuing the directions has categorically observed that the undertaking aforesaid is warranted only to ascertain bonafides of the appellant herein, and the same shall not be conclusive and sufficient to support the order impugned, which shall be tested on its own legality. 11. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate and accordingly direct that it will be open for the appellant to file the undertaking as directed by the learned Single Judge, if it so desires, however, it will not be obligatory upon it to do so. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand modified accordingly. It is always open for the parties to make a prayer before the learned Single Judge for early disposal of the writ petitions. 12. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand modified accordingly. It is always open for the parties to make a prayer before the learned Single Judge for early disposal of the writ petitions. 12. The special appeals stand disposed of in the terms indicated above.