JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Instant writ appeal emanates from a common judgment passed in W.P. (C) No.2679 of 2019 and other connected writ petitions, dated 03.04.2019, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions as devoid of merit, by ordering thus: “3. The notification issued under Section 3A is for acquiring land. This is the first step for the formation of the National Highway. Merely because the land is acquired for National Highway, it will not become a National Highway, unless it is notified in accordance with the National Highways Act. Therefore, the question of appointing the nodal agency by notification for the purpose of development and maintenance does not arise at that stage. The question therefore only to be addressed is whether the land is required for National Highway. The declaration through notification would be sufficient for the purpose of initiating acquisition. It is only after formation of the National Highway, further question of notification under the National Highways Act as well as the National Highways Authority of India Act, arises. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that without there being a notification under the National Highways Authority and National Highways Authority of India Act such nodal agency cannot determine the alignment is legally unsustainable. At the threshold stage, what is required to be satisfied is whether the land is required for the formation of operation of national highway or not. That would be sufficient to issue a notification under Section 3A. Therefore, the arguments questioning Section 3A notification are tenable. 4. Then, the next question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation in terms of Act 30/2013. It is fairly submitted before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway that the Central Government has notified that the evictees would be entitled for compensation in terms of the Act 30/2013 for the land acquired for the development and formation of the National Highway. That submission is recorded. There are no other points to be considered in these writ petitions. With observations and recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the compensation will be paid in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30/2013. The writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merit.” 2. That submission is recorded. There are no other points to be considered in these writ petitions. With observations and recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the compensation will be paid in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30/2013. The writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merit.” 2. Facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that W.P.(C) No.2679 of 2019 was filed by the appellant challenging the notifications dated 02.05.2013 and 24.12.2013, Exhibits-P7 and P10 respectively, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, and to direct the competent authority to consider his objection under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 and specifically the change in the alignment to enforce the policy decision to save buildings when alternative course of acquisition of land is feasible and also to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from his property or from demolishing his residential building, on the ground that the nodal agency, entrusted with the work to identify the alignment and develop the National Highway, is not the one constituted in accordance with the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988. 3. Appellant/writ petitioner has acquired immovable property, as evident from Exhibits-P1 to P4, for construction of a residential building. He built a house therein and started occupying the same on 01.05.1977. Appellant has further stated that he has turned 72 years and it is impossible for him to build another residential building or carry out the required extensive modification to the present residential building after demolition of a section. 4. Appellant has further stated that a National Highway passes along the western boundary of his residential property in 209-210 KM belt. He has acquired the property on the western boundary of the National Highway for construction of a residential building and had given up a proposal, based on unconfirmed reports that alignment of the National Highway proposed to be widened, would pass along his property. 5. He has acquired the property on the western boundary of the National Highway for construction of a residential building and had given up a proposal, based on unconfirmed reports that alignment of the National Highway proposed to be widened, would pass along his property. 5. Union of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Department of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, respondent No.1, has declared, by notification in the official gazette, the intention to acquire the land, for widening the proposed National Highway, under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the District Collector, the competent authority (respondent No.2), caused substance of the said notification published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 02.02.2010 under Section 3A(3) of the said Act. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory [ (2005) 13 SCC 477 ], he filed objections. 6. Appellant has further stated that the notification under Section 3A of the Act ceased to have effect, since a declaration did not follow within a period of one year under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. The first respondent again declared, by notification in the official gazette dated 08.12.2011, the intention to acquire the land and the 2nd respondent caused the substance of the notification published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 31.12.2011. In such circumstances, he has filed W.P.(C) No.27773/2012 challenging the said land acquisition proceedings. 7. Appellant has further stated that after filing the above writ petition, he got confirmation from the counter affidavit of the National Highway Authority of India, respondent No.3, that the declaration under Section 3D of the Act is not published on 07.12.2012. According to the appellant, since the notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act is not published, it would cease to have effect under Section 3D(3) of the Act, 1956. Having noticed the plea of the 3rd respondent that his property is not included in the notification proposed under Section 3D of the NH Act, 1956, and that the notification under such circumstances would cease to have effect, appellant withdrew the writ petition. 8. The property of the appellant falls in Payyoli village, Melady desom, as evident from Exhibit-P5. After the previous proceedings fell by the way aside, the respondents published Exhibit-P7 notification under Section 3A of the Act dated 2.5.2013. 8. The property of the appellant falls in Payyoli village, Melady desom, as evident from Exhibit-P5. After the previous proceedings fell by the way aside, the respondents published Exhibit-P7 notification under Section 3A of the Act dated 2.5.2013. The appellant filed objection dated 01.07.2013 and the competent authority, by proceedings dated 1.1.2014 turned down the objections. Thereafter, the respondents published another notification (ExhibitP10) under Section 3D of the Act. 9. Appellant has further stated that he received Exhibit-P13 reply to his letter stating that the change in the alignment was in the wake of improved geometrics as per IRC standards of MoRTH to attain 80/100 Kms. for vehicles. He contended that if the extraordinary dip towards his property and the incline towards the opposite side is avoided and a straight alignment course be adopted, a section of the property of Sacred Heart Convent identified in Exhibit-P6 plan and an unaided unrecognized school adjacent to it would be the affected persons. 10. Based on the above pleadings, appellant has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other suitable writ or order quashing the original of notifications Exhibits-P7 and P10. (ii) Further to issue a writ of mandamus or other suitable writ or order to direct the competent authority to consider the objections of the writ petitioner under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 and specifically the challenge in alignment to enforce the policy decision to save buildings when alternative course of acquisition of land is feasible. (iii) To issue a writ of prohibition or other suitable writ or order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the writ petitioner from his property or from demolishing his residential building. 11. Before the writ court, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi, respondent No.3, has filed a statement, as under: A) The petitioner herein filed another W.P.(C) No. 27773/2012 and the same is pending for consideration. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit in the said Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking to quash Exhibit-P6 notification, to issue a writ directing the competent authority to consider the objections of the petitioner under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, and for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from his properties or demolishing the residential building. The. The. prayers sought for by the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions (Civil) are one and the same. It is submitted that the reliefs sought for in both Writ Petitions (Civil) are not maintainable, either in law or on facts. (B) It was further stated that the NH.17 (New NH-66) is declared as a National Highway by the Government of India under Section 2 of the National Highway Act, 1956. The Government of India is developing the National Highways throughout the country under the National Highway Development Project (NHDP) in a phased manner. On behalf of the Government of India, National Highways Authority of India was entrusted to do the feasibility studies and preparation of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the 4-laning of the Kerala Karnataka border (Thalappady) to Km.17.200 to Kuttippuram Km. 318.00 section of the NH-17 (New NH-66) in the State of Kerala under NHDP. The above stretch was coming under this Project Implementation Unit. As per section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956, a notification was published in the Government of India Gazette as per SO. 1113(E) dated 02.05.2013 and substance of this notification was published in 2 local dailies dated 25.06.2013. After completing all the formalities as per the National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3D notification was published in the Government of India Gazette as per S.0 3799 (E) dated 24.12.2013 and lands were vested with the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioner's property was included in the above notifications. (C) It was further stated that Section 3A notification as per Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was published in Government of India Gazette as per S.O.89 (E) dated 02.12.2010 and it was lapsed due to non-publication of Section 3D notification, within a period of one year as per Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Afterwards, Section 3A notification as per S.O. 2759 (E) dated 08.12.2011 was published in Government of India Gazette and substances of the notification were published in 2 local dailies in Malayala Manorama dated 31.12.2011 and in Mathrubhumi dated 02.01.2012 as per Section 3A(3) of the said Act. Section 3D notification related with the petitioner's survey number was not published in Section 3D notification, as the survey work for Section 3D notification could not be completed by the competent authority. Section 3D notification related with the petitioner's survey number was not published in Section 3D notification, as the survey work for Section 3D notification could not be completed by the competent authority. (D) It was further stated that afterwards, as per Section 3A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3A notification was again published in the Government of India Gazette as per S.O.1113(E) dated 02.05.2013 and the substance of the notification was published in local dailies Mathrubhumi and Malayala Manorama dated 25.06.2013 that the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the land specified in this schedule annexed to the said notification for building (widening/four laning, etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.17 (New NH-66) on the stretch of the land from Km. 185.980 to Km. 200.250 (Kozhikode Section) in District Kozhikode in the State of Kerala. (E) It was further stated that the petitioner's property of Sy.No.67/1 and 67/2 of Payyoli Village, Meladi Desom, Koyilandy Taluk, Kozhikode District, was included in the above said notification. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objection as per Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 against the said notification and the same was dismissed by the competent authority. Section 3D notification related to the petitioner's Sy.Nos. 67/1 and 67/2 of Meladi Desom, Payyoli Village was published in the GOI gazette vide 5.0 3799 (E) dated 24.12.2013 based on 3A notification as per S.0 1113 (E) dated 02.05.2013. Hence the contention raised by the petitioner is incorrect. As per the above, the land is vested with the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objection against Section 3D notification and the same was dismissed by the competent authority by order No.OPA1.98/ 2012/VDKA dated 01.01.2014 [Annexure-R3(a)]. (F) It was further stated that the petitioner's property is included in the approved alignment for the widening of National Highway and hence, vested with the Central Government, in the year 2013, after the notification of Section 3D in the Government of India Gazette as per S.O. No.3799 (E) dated 24.12.2018. He is trying to mislead this Court by submitting false information in the statement of facts. He has filed the objection petition as per Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the competent authority on 01.07.2013 and it was heard by the authority on 07.10.2013 and disposed on the same day and the order copy signed on 01.01.2014. He is trying to mislead this Court by submitting false information in the statement of facts. He has filed the objection petition as per Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the competent authority on 01.07.2013 and it was heard by the authority on 07.10.2013 and disposed on the same day and the order copy signed on 01.01.2014. Hence, there was no irregularity in disposing the petition and publishing the Section 3D notification. (G) It was further stated that the stretch of the petitioner is coming in between the design chainage of K.m 210.000 to 211.000. In Sy.No 67/2 (Re-Sy.No.67/4) of Melady Desom Payyoli Village to an extent of 0.0814 hectors included in the Section 3D notification as per S.O.3684(E) dated 17.12.2013 totally owned by 9 individuals. An extent of 0.0352 Hectares of land owned by Mother Superior Sacred Heart Convent Payyoli is coming in the alignment. In this alignment, 2 pillars of 3 storeyed school building are affected. In this stretch, the alignment was designed as concentric. (H) It was further stated that the National Highways Authority of India had engaged M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Techno Crafts Pvt. Ltd; New Delhi, as the consultancy for the preparation of DPR after feasibility studies and they have submitted their report in 2007. Since, the land required for the development of NH-17 (New NH-66) was not made available by the concerned competent authority, due to stiff resistance from the public/action councils, the Central Government, by notification in the Government of India bearing S.O.2060 (E), S.O.2061 (E), and S.O.2062 (E) dated 14.08.2014, have withdrawn the stretch from National Highways Authority of India and entrusted to the Government of Kerala, for maintenance and development. Exhibit-P19 notification dated 14.08.2014 and Exhibit-P20 notification dated 14.08.2014, NH-17 (New NH-66) relate to Kannur-Vengalam-Kuttippuram, in the State of Kerala, comprised from Km. 148.000 to 318.000. The project was dropped due to the delay in acquiring the land from the owners. Subsequently, in the meeting held on 10.04.2015 presided by the Hon'ble Minister for Roads and Highways, New Delhi with the Government of Kerala, gave an assurance that all the help will be provided for speedy acquisition of land required for 45 meters at the earliest. Thereafter, an order dated 27.08.2015 [Annexure-R3(b)] was issued by the 3rd respondent to the 5th respondent and decided to revive land acquisition process for 4 laning of Karnataka/Kerala Border - Edappally Section. Thereafter, an order dated 27.08.2015 [Annexure-R3(b)] was issued by the 3rd respondent to the 5th respondent and decided to revive land acquisition process for 4 laning of Karnataka/Kerala Border - Edappally Section. (I) Government of Kerala, by its order dated 09.10.2015, has forwarded the minutes of the meeting held on 16.10.2015 in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, to the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, PIU Kozhikode, as evident from Annexure-R3(c). Again, another meeting was convened on 18.06.2016 in the presence of Additional Chief Secretary, PWD and other officials, as evident from the minutes of the meeting held on 18.06.2016 in the presence of Additional Chief Secretary, PWD [Annexure-R3(d)]. Afterwards, land acquisition work for the development of National Highway 17 (New NH-66) was re-started by the competent authority and in progress. In so many other cases, this Court has discussed the issue and approved the revival of land acquisition. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is baseless and only to stall the prestigious project, such an allegation is made. (J) It was further stated that the alignment for widening the National Highways was fixed by the DPR Consultant by considering various technical aspects and the norms of IRC standards to attain a speed of 80/100 Kmph. Hence, the alignment cannot be changed due to technical reasons. The land and structures coming in the alignment would be compensated as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. 12. The 3rd respondent has filed an additional statement reiterating the same contentions raised by them, in their earlier statement. 13. Writ court, after considering the pleadings and the contentions raised by the 3rd respondent in the statements, has dismissed the writ petitions by the impugned judgment, as extracted above. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal raising the following grounds: (a) The notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 suffers from the vice of not conforming to the requirements of Section 3A(1) of the said Act insofar as they leave the area under acquisition unidentifiable to the owners like the appellant. (b) The plan referred to in the notification is not helpful to the appellant to assess the extent of the property to put forward the objections. (b) The plan referred to in the notification is not helpful to the appellant to assess the extent of the property to put forward the objections. (c) The notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act is bad in the context of the judgment in Competent Authority (cited supra) and the judgment in Bahorilal v. Land Acquisition Office reported in 1970 Allahabad 414. (d) The competent authority is statutorily bound to hear the appellant of his objections under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 and has not done so when the date for a declaration was due by 08.12.2012. (e) Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sube Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 545 , the appellant has contended that the competent authority has to consider the objections of the appellant to explore the possibilities of aligning the National Highway so as to acquire the property from the opposite side of the road free from building when part of the residential building of the appellant might have to be demolished impairing the remaining part of the building. (f) Appellant has further contended that learned single Judge has overlooked that the 3rd respondent ceased to have powers as executing agency under Exhibits-P18 to P20 notifications and failed to consider his plea to save his building by change in the alignment, exploiting unencumbered space on the west of the road. According to the appellant, respondents 3 and 5 are not duly empowered to exercise their powers by the notification. 14. Based on the above, Mr. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellant, made submissions. That apart, referring to Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 and Section 11 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, he further submitted that a nodal agency ought to have been notified for the purpose of development and maintenance, and in the absence of the above, Exhibits-P7 and P10 are illegal and liable to be set aside. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 16. Notification issued under Section 11 of the National Highways on record. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 16. Notification issued under Section 11 of the National Highways on record. Authority of India Act, 1988 dated 26.02.2010 (Exhibit-P18) reads thus: “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 26th February, 2010 S.O. 485 (E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (68 of 1988), the Central Government hereby entrusts the stretches as specified in column (3) of the following Table, of the section as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table of the National Highways specified in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the said table to the National Highways Authority of India namely:- National Highway Section Stretches in Kilometres No. (1) (2) (3) 17 Kannur -Vengalam -Kuttipuram in the State of Kerala From: Km. 148-00 to Km.318-00 18 Cherthalai -Ochira -Thiruvananthapuram in the State of Kerala From: Km. 379-100 to 551.000 NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 26th February, 2010 S.O. 486(E) -In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (Department of Road Transport and Highways) number S.O. 1096 (E), dated the 4th August, 2005, namely:- In the Schedule to the said notification for serial number 12 and the entries relating thereto the following shall be substituted, namely:- *12 So much of National Highways No.17 [excluding from km.148.00 to km 318.00 (Kannur Vengalam -Kuttipuram)], No.47 [excluding from km. 182.040 to km. 358.750 (from Tamil Nadu/Kerala Boarder to Kochi) and from km. 379,100 to km. 551.900 (Cherthalai-Ochira- Thiruvananthapuram)] No.47A, No.49, No.208, No.212, No.213 and No.220 as are situated within the State of Kerala. State Government of Kerala F. No. NH 1615 11 2009 -P&M S.S. GUHA, Dy. Secy. Foot Note:- The Principal notification was published vide number S.O. 1096 (F.), dated the 4th August, 2005 and last amended vide number S.O. 2892 (E), dated the 13th November, 2009.” 17. Letter dated 04.04.2012 (Exhibit-P13) given to the appellant by the National Highways Authority of India and the same reads thus: “No. NHAI/KOZ/2012/235 Date: 04.04.2012 To Sri. N. K. Parameswaran Advocate, "Archana" Payyoli-673522 Kozhikode Sub:-NHAI-PIU-Kozhikode- Application under RTI Act-2005- Reg. Ref: Your petition Dt. 18.3.2012. Letter dated 04.04.2012 (Exhibit-P13) given to the appellant by the National Highways Authority of India and the same reads thus: “No. NHAI/KOZ/2012/235 Date: 04.04.2012 To Sri. N. K. Parameswaran Advocate, "Archana" Payyoli-673522 Kozhikode Sub:-NHAI-PIU-Kozhikode- Application under RTI Act-2005- Reg. Ref: Your petition Dt. 18.3.2012. With reference to the above, reply to the points raised in your petition are as follows: (1) Does not arise. (2) The individual details of structures were not available in this office and the details could be available only after the completion of survey work conducted by the Special Land Acquisition unit. Koyilandy. (3) The alignment had been fixed as per Technical wisdom of Highway experts of National Highway authority of India and by considering improved geometrics as per IRC standards of MORTH to attain 80/100 KMPH. (4) The details were not available in this office. (5) Please see the answers stated in Para 3. (6) The alignment was finalized after conducting a detailed Topographical survey, considering minimal damages to the structures and improved geometrics. At most care is taken to improve bends and curves. Postal order worth Rs. 10/-is returned herewith the address of the Appellate Authority is as follows: The Chief General Manager (Tech) NHAI, Regional Office, No.1/54-28, Butt road St. Thomas mount, Near kathipara junction Chennai -600016. Yours Faithfully, M.SUBBARAO Project Director PIU – Kozhikode” 18. The competent authority under the Right to Information Act, has given appropriate reply, as to how and by whom alignment has been fixed. 19. Notification dated 2.5.2013 (Exhibit-P7) issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi reads thus: “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, 2nd May, 2013 S.O. 1113(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government, after being satisfied that for the public purpose, the land, the brief description of which is given in the schedule below is required for building (widening / four-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 17, in the stretch of land from Km. 185.90 to Km. 260.200 in Kozhikode District in the State of Kerala hereby declares its intention to acquire such land. 185.90 to Km. 260.200 in Kozhikode District in the State of Kerala hereby declares its intention to acquire such land. Any person interested in the said land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, object to the use of such land for the aforesaid purpose under sub-section (1) of Section 3C of the said Act. Every such objection shall be made to the competent authority, namely, the Special Deputy Collector (LA), NH, Kozhikode, in writing, and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) of Section 3C of the said Act shall be final. The land plans and other details of the land covered under this notification are available and can be inspected by the interested person at the aforesaid office of the competent authority. SCHEDULE Brief description of the land to be acquired, with or without structure, falling within the stretch of land from Km. 185.980 to Km. 260.200 of the National Highway No.17, in Kozhikode District in the State of Kerala. Sl. No. Name Of The District Name Of The Taluk Name Of The Village Survey Number Type Of Land Nature Of Land Area In Hectares xx xxx xx xxx xx xx xxx xxx Desam: Meladi 67/1 Private Dry On Ground 0.29 67/2 Private Dry On Ground 0.08 20. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. After the expiry of 21 days from the date of publication, objections have been submitted by the appellant. 21. Objection submitted by the appellant before the Special Deputy Collector L.A.N.H.M, Kozhikode dated 1.7.2013 (Exhibit-P8) reads thus:- “Before the Special Deputy Collector L.A.N.H.M. (Competent Authority) Kozhikode N.K. Parameswaran, S/o late N.P. Krishna Moorthi, Advocate, P.O. Payyoli, Pin 673 522, Kozhikode District. After the expiry of 21 days from the date of publication, objections have been submitted by the appellant. 21. Objection submitted by the appellant before the Special Deputy Collector L.A.N.H.M, Kozhikode dated 1.7.2013 (Exhibit-P8) reads thus:- “Before the Special Deputy Collector L.A.N.H.M. (Competent Authority) Kozhikode N.K. Parameswaran, S/o late N.P. Krishna Moorthi, Advocate, P.O. Payyoli, Pin 673 522, Kozhikode District. Owner and Possessor of land in R.S. 67/1, 2 of Payyoli Village Meladi Desom Sir, I submit the following objection to the Notification dated 2-5-2013 published in Government of India Gazette, notification published in Mathrubhumi daily on 25-6-2013 under Section 3 (A) (1) of the National Highway Act 1956. (1) Notifications under Section 3A (1) were made earlier on two occasions on 2-2-2010 and on 31-12-2011 in Mathrubhumi daily No one has power to issue notification u/s 3A (1) for the same land for the same purpose twice. Hence newspaper advertisement dated 25-6-2013 is invalid. Moreover, piecemeal notification made under Sec. 3A (1) is invalid. (2) To the above mentioned two notifications I have filed objections. I pray those objections may be read as part of this objection. (3) The property lying in R.S. No. 67/1, 2 of Meladi desom, Payyoli Village having an extent of 52 cents is owned and possessed by me as per assignment deed No. 1792/74 of SRO Payyoli dated 23-8-1974 and as per the final decree passed in I.A. 132/76 in O.S. 21/1974 by Munsiff Court, Payyoli. I have purchased Janmam right from the Land Tribunal, Meladi as per purchase certificate No. 3167/77. I am residing in the house having building No. PP 12/717. The property is situated in between 210-211 K.m. (4) The 3A (1) notification is not made in consonance with the observation made in W.P.(C) 6602/2008 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 4-8-2008. The direction in the Judgment has not been complied. (5) In the above mentioned three notifications there is substantial variation in the particulars relating to extent, nature of land and ownership of the land intended to be acquired in Re-survey No. 67/1, 2. (6) In the notification published it is not clear as to whether any portion of my property is included and if it is included it is not mentioned as to the measurement or the extent of land included The total extent of land in Re-survey No. 67/2 is 10.5 Acres. (6) In the notification published it is not clear as to whether any portion of my property is included and if it is included it is not mentioned as to the measurement or the extent of land included The total extent of land in Re-survey No. 67/2 is 10.5 Acres. The extent of land intended to be acquired is not specifically stated Hence the particulars given in the notification is incomplete and inaccurate. (7) The National Highway-17 was decided to be widened in 1973. Then the land on the western side of the road was only included for acquisition and alignment was fixed accordingly fixing survey stones in that property. There was no objection against that It is known that the present alignment is fixed totally ignoring and against the 1973 alignment. There is no reason for changing the earlier alignment. (8) It is understood that as per the present alignment more property is included on the eastern side and only very less property on the western side is included. The above action is wrong, arbitrary and partisan to protect owners of land on the western side of the road. There is malafides in it. (9) If more land is acquired in the chainage in which my property lies from the eastern side the road will have unnecessary bend which will hinder smooth movement of the vehicles. (10) The proposed road widening ought to have been restricted to 30 metres. I am a senior citizen. I have no other property or house in Payyoli. It is not possible for me to purchase a new house or to make alterations or repair to the existing house. I request you to exclude my house and property wholly from the acquisition. (11) If at any rate, if any portion of my property is to be acquired, I request that compensation at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per cent for the land and at least Rs.25 lakhs for the damage that will be caused to the compound wall and the house may be paid for the reconstruction of the wall and repair of the house. (12) I request to receive the objection and execute my land from the acquisition. Sd/- N.K. Parameswaran 1-07-2013” 22. From a reading of the objections, it is discernible that alignment and compensation were the main issues and not the appointment of a nodal officer. 23. (12) I request to receive the objection and execute my land from the acquisition. Sd/- N.K. Parameswaran 1-07-2013” 22. From a reading of the objections, it is discernible that alignment and compensation were the main issues and not the appointment of a nodal officer. 23. Notification S.O.3799(E) dated 24.12.2013 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Exhibit-P10) reads thus: “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013. S.O. 3799 (E).-Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Number S.O. 1113 (E), dated 2nd May, 2013, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) and issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central government declared its intention to acquire the land specified in the scheduled annexed to the said notification for building (widening/four-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.17 on the stretch of land from Km. 185.980 to Km.260.200 (Kozhikode Section) in District Kozhikode in the State of Kerala. And whereas the substance of the above said notification has been published in “Mathrubhoomi”, and 'Malayala Manorama', both dated the 25th June, 2013, under sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the said Act; And whereas, in pursuant of sub-section (1) of Section 3D of the said Act, the competent authority has submitted its report to the Central Government. Now, therefore, upon receipt of the said report of the competent authority and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3D of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declare that the land specified in the said schedule should be required for the aforesaid purpose; And further, in pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 3D of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that on publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, the land specified in the said Schedule shall vest absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. SCHEDULE Brief description of the land to be acquired, with or without structure, falling within the stretch of land from 185.980 to Km. 260.200 of the National Highway No. 17 in District Kozhikode in the State of Kerala. SCHEDULE Brief description of the land to be acquired, with or without structure, falling within the stretch of land from 185.980 to Km. 260.200 of the National Highway No. 17 in District Kozhikode in the State of Kerala. Serial Number Name of the District Name of the taluk Name of the village Survey No. Type of land Nature of land Area (in Hecters) Name of land owner/interested person Before sub division After sub Division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Kozhikode Koyilasn dy 1. Payyoli Desam: Meladi 67/1 67/3 Private Dry on Ground 0.2870. 1. Nelliyeri Kannan Nair & Others Meladi. 67/2 67/4 Private Dry on Ground 0.0814. 1. Vijayalaksmi, Veerattukandy, Payyoli (PO) 2. Majeed & Kunhammad Thadiyam Parambil Thalodi Payyoli (Po), 3. K.K. Latheef, K.K. House Thikodi (Po) 4. Nisar (Safath) Suruma Payyoli (Po) 5. Santhosh kumar Payyoli (Po) 6. P. Vijayan & P. Mohanan Christal Polymers, Payyoli(Po) 7. Adv. N.K. Parameswaran Arjana, Payyoli (Po) ........... xx xx xxx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx 24. Proceedings dated 01.01.2014 of the National Highway–17 Land Acquisition, Kozhikode, Special Deputy Collector, (Exhibit-P9), rejecting the objections and the same reads thus: “National Highway – 17 Land Acquisition, Kozhikode, Special Deputy Collector – Procedure Attendance/ C.P. Thomas Present EA 1 98/2012/VDKA Date: 1/1/2014 Sub:- NH -17 -four lane Development -Kozhikode District -Land Acquisition Road -Taluk -Payyoli Village-objection submitted by one N.K. Parameaswaran -Archana House -Meladi Desom -regarding Land Acquisition as per Sec. 3 (c) (1) of LAA of 1956. Ref: 1. Objection filed on 1-7-2013 by Sri. N.K. Parameswaran, Koyilandy Taluk, Payyoli Village. 2. Remarks of National Highway Project Director on 23-9-2013 nod as NHA1/PIU/Kozhi/2012/521. 3. The trial was held on 7/10/13. Objection was filed against the acquisition of land in Meladi desom, Payyoli village in Koyilandy Taluk in Kozhikode District against the conversion of NH -17 to four lane. Objection was filed under Sec.3 (C) (1) against the notification of S.O. (113 (E) published on 2-5-2013 as per Section 3 (C) (1) of NH Act 1956. Sri. Objection was filed against the acquisition of land in Meladi desom, Payyoli village in Koyilandy Taluk in Kozhikode District against the conversion of NH -17 to four lane. Objection was filed under Sec.3 (C) (1) against the notification of S.O. (113 (E) published on 2-5-2013 as per Section 3 (C) (1) of NH Act 1956. Sri. N.K. Parameswaran has submitted in his objection that land in R.S. No.67/1, 2 in Meladi Desom is in his possession and that he objects the decision to acquire the land for the proposed National Highway/Bypass and that he is residing in the house situated in the land, so he requested to exclude his land from acquisition and that if at all the land is required to be acquired, he should be provided adequate price and compensation. The Project Director, N H A in the remark given under reference (2), states that under Sec.3A(1) National Highway Act, 1956 it has power to acquire the land required for the four lane National Highway road which is for public purpose and is required by the Central Government. That the alignment for the four lane is fixed by the Technical experts of the National Highway Authority. The land notified for acquisition for widening the National Highway into four lane Highway cannot be excluded. That the compensation for the land and improvements will be given as per National Highway Act That for persons who land, the State Government has announced a package as per 419/11/RD dated 15.11.2011. Notice was given to the applicant as per Section 3 (C) (2) of NH Act and on the date mentioned in reference hearing was Applicant has reiterated the averments in the application. In the light of the National Highway Authority informing that the land is required for converting NH into four-lane which is a public purpose and that the existing alignment cannot be altered and that the compensation will be paid under National Highway Act, 1956 and as per the compensation rehabilitation package announced by the State Government, the objection submitted under reference No. (1) is hereby dismissed and orders issued under Section 3C (2) of the N.H Act. Sd/- Special Deputy Collector & Competent Authority L.A. N.H. 17, Kozhikode. Copy to, Sri. N.K. Parameswaran” 25. Sd/- Special Deputy Collector & Competent Authority L.A. N.H. 17, Kozhikode. Copy to, Sri. N.K. Parameswaran” 25. Notification issued under Section 11 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 dated 14.08.2014, (Exhibit-P19), reads thus: “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014. S.O. 2060(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 (68 of 1988), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways number S.O. 1035(E), dated the 7th May, 2010, namely:- In the Table to the said notification, the following entries in respect of State of Kerala, under columns number (1), (2) and (3) respectively shall be omitted:- 17 From Karnataka/Kerala Border-Kannur in the State of Kerala From: Km. 18.000 to km. 148.000 Note:-The principal notification was published vide number S.O. 1035(E) dated the 7th May, 2010.” “NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014. S.O. 2061(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 (68 of 1988), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways number S.O. 485(E), dated the 26th February, 2010, namely:- In the Table to the said notification, the following entries in respect of State of Kerala, under columns number (1), (2) and (3) respectively shall be omitted:- 17 Kannur-Vengalam-Kuttippuram in the State of Kerala From: Km. 18.000 to km. 148.000 [F. No. NH-14013/10/2014-P&M] MAYA PRAKASH, Director (P&B) Note :-The principal notification was published vide number S.O. 485(E), dated the 26th February, 2010.” 26. Notification issued under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated 14.08.2014, (Exhibit-P20), reads thus: “NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014. 18.000 to km. 148.000 [F. No. NH-14013/10/2014-P&M] MAYA PRAKASH, Director (P&B) Note :-The principal notification was published vide number S.O. 485(E), dated the 26th February, 2010.” 26. Notification issued under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated 14.08.2014, (Exhibit-P20), reads thus: “NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 14th August, 2014. S.O. 2062(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (Department of Road Transport and Highways) number S.O. 1096(E), dated the 4th August, 2005, namely:- In the Schedule to the said notification, for serial number 12 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely:- So much of National Highways No.17, No.47 (excluding from km. 182.040 to km. 358.750 (from Tamil Nadu/Kerala Border to Kochi], No. 47A, No.49, No.208, No.212, No.213 and No.220 as are situated within the State of Kerala. State Government of Kerala Note:-The principal notification was published vide number S.O. 1096(E), dated the 4th August, 2005 and was last amended vide number S.O.1396(E), dated the 28th May, 2014.” 27. Annexure-R3(a) is the order dated 01.01.2014, dismissing the objection filed by the appellant against Section 3D notification, produced along with the statement of the 3rd respondent, extracted above. Annexure-R3(b) is the order dated 27.08.2015 issued by the National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi, respondent No.3, to State of Kerala, represented by Secretary (L.A.), Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.5, and the same reads thus: “NHAI/1205/4(A)/10/RO Kerala/Chn/20 August 27, 2015 The Chief Secretary Government of Kerala Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Sub:-NHAI; Kerala Region – Reviving of the Land Acquisition Process for 4-laning of Karnataka/Kerala border – Edappally section of NH-17 (New NH-66) and Cherthalai – Thiruvananthapuram section of NH-47 (New NH-66) in the State of Kerala – Finalization of a time bound Action Plan – Request to convene a meeting of CALAs & District Collectors – Reg. Sir, This is with reference to the proposed revival of the land acquisition process for the National Highway Projects in the State of Kerala, which were earlier dropped due to delay in acquisition of land. 2. Sir, This is with reference to the proposed revival of the land acquisition process for the National Highway Projects in the State of Kerala, which were earlier dropped due to delay in acquisition of land. 2. In this regard, it is stated that due to delay in completing the process of land acquisition, which was commenced in the year 2009, NHAI could not implement the following projects taken up under NHDP Phase – III. (i) 4-laning of Karnataka/Kerala border – Edappally section of NH-17 (4 Packages). Out of 4 Packages, contracts were awarded in respect of 3 Packages, which had to be terminated later. (ii) 4-laning of Cherthala-Ochira-Thiruvananthapuram section of NH-47 (2 Packages) 3. Later, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had entrusted the existing road in the above stretches of NH-17 and NH-47 to the Government of Kerala for development and maintenance. 4. Subsequently, during the review meeting held by Hon'ble Union Minister of Road Transport Highways and Shipping at Kochi on 08.01.2015, which was attended by Hon'ble Minister for Public Works, Govt. of Kerala, Secretary to Government, PWD, Kerala and other Officers of MoRT&H, NHAI and PWD, Hon'ble Union Minister (RTH&S) informed that the Central Government was willing to expedite the stalled NH widening projects, provided the State Government acquired the land in a time bound manner The issue was again discussed by Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala with Hon'ble Union Minister of Road Transport, Highways and Shipping during his visit to Kerala on 10.04.2015 when Hon'ble Union Minister (RTH&S) assured 10 revive the NHDP for development of NH-17 and NH-47 through NHAI. 5. Accordingly, on the basis of assurance given by Govt. of Kerala that it will extend full support for acquiring and for minimum ROW of 45.0m to take up the 4-laning of NH-17 and NH-47, Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide DO. letter dated 19.06 2015 addressed to Member (Tech.), NHA directed NHAI to take necessary action to expedite the land acquisition and revive the upgradation of NHs 17 and 47 in Kerala under NHDP Phase-1. 6. In this regard, it is stated that earlier when LA process was taken up for the above NHDP Projects Notifications under section 3A(1) of the NH Act published in the Gazette were lapsed twice due to non publication of the subsequent Notification i.e. 3D Notification, within the stipulated period of one year. 6. In this regard, it is stated that earlier when LA process was taken up for the above NHDP Projects Notifications under section 3A(1) of the NH Act published in the Gazette were lapsed twice due to non publication of the subsequent Notification i.e. 3D Notification, within the stipulated period of one year. 7. In order to complete the LA process expeditiously and to avoid repeat of the past when Notifications were allowed to lapse, it is necessary that time bound action plan is chalked out prior to revival of the LA activities This will also help NHAI to finalize the plan for initiating the bidding process simultaneously so that the works can be awarded within the shortest possible time. 8. In the meanwhile, NHAI has taken action to appoint Consultant for updating the cost estimate and preparation of bidding documents for obtaining requisite approvals from the Ministry to initiate the bidding process. 9. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly convene a meeting with CALAS and Collectors of the concerned Districts on a date convenient to the Chief Secretary so that the LA process can be revived with a concrete action plan and specific timelines for accomplishment of various tasks under the provisions of NH Act, 1956. The presence of Secretary, PWD, Secretary, Revenue and Heads of the Utility Owing Agencies, viz., KSEB, KWA, etc., in the proposed meeting will be appreciated. Thanking you: and wish you a HAPPY ONAM Yours faithfully, (V. CHINNA REDDY) Chief General Manager (Tech.) & Regional Officer, Kerala.” 28. Annexure-R3(c) is the letter dated 09.10.2015 sent by the 5th respondent to the National Highway Authority of India, 3rd respondent, along with the minutes of the meeting held on 16.10.2015 in the presence of Chief Secretary to the Government and the same reads thus: “No.22030/D3/2015/PWD Thiruvananthapuram, Dated: 09.10.2015 From The Secretary to Government To 1. xx xxx xxxx 2. xx xxx xxxx 3. Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Krishnakripa, Aiswarya Road, Civil Station P.O., Kozhikode. Sir, Sub:-PWD-Reviving of the Land Acquisition Process of 4 laning of Karnataka/Kerala border - Edappally section of NH17 (New NH-66) and Cherthalai -Thiruvananthapuram section of NH-47 (New NH-66) in the State of Kerala finalization of a time bound Action Plan -meeting -Minutes of forwarding of - reg. Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Krishnakripa, Aiswarya Road, Civil Station P.O., Kozhikode. Sir, Sub:-PWD-Reviving of the Land Acquisition Process of 4 laning of Karnataka/Kerala border - Edappally section of NH17 (New NH-66) and Cherthalai -Thiruvananthapuram section of NH-47 (New NH-66) in the State of Kerala finalization of a time bound Action Plan -meeting -Minutes of forwarding of - reg. I am to forward herewith a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 06.10.2015 for information and necessary action. Yours faithfully, J. REJIKUMAR Under Secretary for Secretary to Government Approved for issue Sd/- Section Officer. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY CHIEF SECRETARY ON 06.10.2015 AT 11.00 AM TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES REGARDING THE REVIVING OF LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR THE FOR THE WORK 4 LANING OF NH 17 AND NH. 47 List of participants attached separately. The meeting commenced at 11.00 am. The following projects were taken up by National Highway Authority of India under NHDP Phase III. i. 4-laning of Karnataka /Kerala border -Edappally section of NH-17. ii. 4-laning of Cherthala -Ochira Thiruvananthapuram section of NH- 47. The above projects were earlier dropped by NHAI due to delay in land acquisition. MoRTH has since entrusted the above stretches to Government of Kerala for development and maintenance. During the review meeting held on 08.01.2015 convened by Union Minister of Road Transports. Highways and Shipping which was attended by Hon'ble Minister of Public Works, Government of Kerala, Secretary to Government, PWD, Kerala and other Officers of MORTH, NHAI and PWD, Hon'ble Union Minister (RTH&S) informed that the Central Government is willing to expedite the stalled NH widening projects provided the State Government should acquire the land in a time bound manner. Today's meeting was convened by Chief Secretary as per the request of Chief General Manager, NHAI for completing the land Acquisition process expeditiously and to avoid a repeat of the pest when notifications were allowed to lapse. The officials from NHAI and Revenue Department explained in detail the difficulties faced by them during the land acquisition process. Chief Secretary opined that 2 tire bound action plan should be chalked out prior to the revival of land acquisition activities. After detailed discussions and deliberations the following decisions were taken. 1. The officials from NHAI and Revenue Department explained in detail the difficulties faced by them during the land acquisition process. Chief Secretary opined that 2 tire bound action plan should be chalked out prior to the revival of land acquisition activities. After detailed discussions and deliberations the following decisions were taken. 1. District Collectors concerned shall discuss the specific issues in the alignment of sensitive areas including the places of worship with the local authorities concerned and to furnish report to Government before 20.10.2015. 2: The issues that cannot be solved at the district level may be reported to the State Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. MANNUTHY VADAKKANCHERRY STRETCH OF NH 47 At the outset Secretary PWD pointed out that the condition of Mannuthy-Vadakkancherry stretch of NH 47 especially at Kuthiran is pathetic and not at all traffic worthy The department is receiving complaints from various comers regarding the poor condition of the road. Moreover, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has also directed that immediate necessary action may be taken to make the road pothole free. Secretary. PWD directed the concessionaire company to do the needful urgently for making the road traffic worthy. Also they were directed to complete the laning work within the specified time frame. The representative of the KNR Construction company requested to issue special clearance for procuring the earth for work. DECISION 1. The concessionaire company has been directed to make the Mannuthy-Vadakkancherry stretch of NH 47 traffic worthy filling the potholes within one week. 2. District Collector, Palakkad is directed to take necessary action to issue special clearance for procuring 13 lakh M3 earth, relaxing environmental clearance for the construction work of the Mannuthy - Vadakkancherry stretch of NH 47. The meeting came to an end by 12.00 noon.” 29. Annexure-R3(d) is another meeting convened on 18.06.2016 in the presence of the Additional Chief Secretary, PWD and other officials, and it was resolved thus: Minutes of the meeting convened by the PWD Additional Chief Secretary Sri. Subrato Biswas at the Collectorate Conference Hall Kannur on 18-6-2016 at pm (The of participants enclosed separately) The Deputy Collector (LA) Dr. PK Jayasree welcomed the PWD Additional Chief Secretary Sri Subroto Biswas I.A.S. to the meeting and invited the officers to discuss the issues relating to the acquisition of land for National Highway development as four lane and payment of compensation to owners. PK Jayasree welcomed the PWD Additional Chief Secretary Sri Subroto Biswas I.A.S. to the meeting and invited the officers to discuss the issues relating to the acquisition of land for National Highway development as four lane and payment of compensation to owners. The Additional District Magistrate Sri. H. Dinesan, the Sub Collector Smt. Navajyoth Ghose I.A.S and the Chief Engineer (NH) Sri. Prabhakaran were present, in addition to LAO's of all sub offices. The Additional Chief Secretary in his presidential address emphasised that the decision of the State Government is to develop the National Highways of Kerala as four lane in par with the standards of other State National Highways. The A.C.S also said that the Hon'ble Union Minister has informed the Hon'ble Chief Minister that the Central Government is ready to give all support if sufficient land is acquired and made available for the purpose by the State. A total extent of land to be acquired, is 225.7357 Hectares in Kannur District for this purpose of constructing Taliparamba, Payyannur and Kannur bye-passes and portion of Mahe bye-pass and widening of the existing NH 17. Out of this, 3D notification has been published for an extent of 101.1623 Hectare land in this District. The Land Acquisition officers were directed to take urgent necessary steps to pass the award and hand over the land to NHAI within 2 months time bound manner. He also directed to take immediate steps to acquire the (93.2025 Hector) for which, 3A notification is sent for publication to NHAI Head Quarters. He has directed the NHAI to study the alignment where religious structures like church, temple or mosque are affected. Suggestions were also given to NHAI to study, regarding religious structures coming under alignment and to prepare mahazars to be submitted before the government. NHAI officer has informed that, a consultant Aecom has been appointed to study realignment proposals in Taliparamba, Payyannur, and a portion in Kannur bye-passes, and also disputes regarding alignment in front of Pariyaram Medical College and segment from Nayanar Memorial Polytechnic to Valapatanam Bridge. The Additional Chief Secretary directed to submit their report before 30-7-2016. The ADM was instructed to provide necessary surveyors to speed up the survey & subdivision works and 10 complete the land acquisition urgently, and also to use the services of all available surveyors in the district. The Additional Chief Secretary directed to submit their report before 30-7-2016. The ADM was instructed to provide necessary surveyors to speed up the survey & subdivision works and 10 complete the land acquisition urgently, and also to use the services of all available surveyors in the district. It was instructed to complete the subdivision work of all 3D notified land to make 4 lane NH a reality within 2 months and also to speed up the balance acquisition works urgently. The NHAI has informed that the additional 3A notification which are pending in their Head Quarters, which will be published soon. He also directed ADM to provide by redeployment Revenue Inspectors-3, Surveyors-6, Deputy Tahsildars-2, Village Assistants-2, Clerks-4 and Computer operators-2 to Special Tahsildar's offices (LANH). to complete the land acquisition work of SD notified land in a time bound manner. Essential additional staff also to be provided to the Office of the Deputy Collector LA NH Taliparamba, for the smooth completion of land acquisition works of all 3D notification in a time bound manner. He also directed to allot adequate computer and accessories to these offices. He asked the concerned engineer of line departments -KSEB, KWA, BSNL, etc., to shift utilities on war footing basis, once the alignment is finalised. NHAI delegates informed that the compensation to the land owners in Chokli village is to be determined according to the Govt. of India's new RELTARR Act, 2013 of extra ordinary Gazette No. 40/2013 dtd. 27-9-13 page No. 37 Section 30(2), using multiple factor as 1 in urban areas and 2 in rural areas. The Special Tahsildar LA NH, Thalassery suggested that necessary action can be taken only if the NHAI gives a clarification in writing regarding the multiple factors. The Additional Chief Secretary directed the NHAI to hand over the letter within 2 days. The Additional Chief Secretary informed that the valuators of buildings included in the alignment will be appointed from outside agencies and directed all Land acquisition officers to co-operate with these agencies in identification of buildings and land. It is also instructed to give building details of Kannur Taluk to Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings and that of Taliparamba Taluk to Executive Engineer PWD Roads as they are the nodal agencies for valuation of Buildings. It is also instructed to give building details of Kannur Taluk to Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings and that of Taliparamba Taluk to Executive Engineer PWD Roads as they are the nodal agencies for valuation of Buildings. The District Collector, District Police Chief and Sub Divisional Magistrate were instructed to provide necessary magisterial and police assistance in case of any protest from public during the field works. NHAI informed that the expenditure statement and vouchers of fund already allotted to the CALA is to be submitted urgently by all concerned officers so that further funds can be allotted. He insisted that any problem regarding land held by religious institutions which come within the alignment and included in 3D notification are to be discussed at District Collector level, by convening special meetings for each work. The Additional Chief Secretary said that he will directly examine the dispute of KSTP work in the field at Chonadam the next day (20-6-2016) itself. The fund allotted already to Mambaram bridge has become denova and so Additional Chief Secretary informed that District Collector to take steps for direct / negotiated purchase of land. The Additional Chief Secretary asked PWD Engineers to discuss and settle the dispute between KSTP and IOC at Payam regarding compensation and submit a report urgently to ACS for necessary action. The issues related to the structure valuation in Ezhimala Naval Academy road is to be resolved through discussion and any feasible solution should be reported to the Government, said the Additional Chief Secretary. The Additional Chief Secretary also agreed to discuss with the Director of Survey and provide 5 extra Total Stations to complete the survey work of NH land acquisitions in a time bound manner. He directed the DD survey to provide service of extra surveyors needed from Re-Survey offices. The ADM was asked to give a detailed report regarding non receipt of continuous sanction for the LA offices. The Additional Chief Secretary concluded the meeting remaining all officers that the National Highway development is one of the main subjects of the Government and hence completion of all related works in a time bound basis is to be given utmost priority. The meeting came to an end at 3.30 pm. //By order// Sd/-DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), KANNUR.” 30. National Highways Act, 1956 is an Act to provide for the declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith. The meeting came to an end at 3.30 pm. //By order// Sd/-DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), KANNUR.” 30. National Highways Act, 1956 is an Act to provide for the declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith. Section 3(a) of the Act defines “competent authority” to mean any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area, as may be specified in the notification. 31. Section 3A of the Act, 1956 speaks about power to acquire land and the same reads thus: “3-A. Power to acquire land, etc. -(1)Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. (2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land. (3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language.” 32. Section 3C of the said Act speaks about hearing of objections and the same reads thus: “3-C. Hearing of objections. -(1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3-A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard,either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation. -For the purposes of this sub-section, legal practitioner has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961). (3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final.” 33. Section 3D of the Act speaks about declaration of acquisition and the same reads thus:- “3-D. Declaration of acquisition. (3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final.” 33. Section 3D of the Act speaks about declaration of acquisition and the same reads thus:- “3-D. Declaration of acquisition. -(1)Where no objection under sub-section (1) of Section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under subsection (2) of that section,the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 3A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under sub-section (1) of Section 3A for its acquisition but no declaration under sub-section (1) has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect: Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3A is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded. (4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any Court or by any other authority.” 34. Section 3E of the Act speaks about power to take possession and the same reads thus: “3-E. Power to take possession.-(1) Where any land has vested in the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 3-D, and the amount determined by the competent authority under section 3G with respect to such land has been deposited under sub-section (1) of section 3H, with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within sixty days of the service of the notice. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with any direction made under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall apply- (a) in the case of any land situated in any area falling within the metropolitan area, to the Commissioner of Police; (b) in case of any land situated in any area other than the area referred to in clause (a), to the Collector of a District, and such Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be, shall enforce the surrender of the land, to the competent authority or to the person duly authorised by it.” 35. Section 3F speaks about the right to enter into the land where land has vested in the Central Government and the same reads thus: “3-F. Right to enter into the land where land has vested in the Central Government.-Where the land has vested in the Central Government under section 3-D, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, to enter and do other act necessary upon the land for carrying out the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or a part thereof, or any other work connected therewith.” 36. Section 5 speaks about the responsibility for development and maintenance of national highways and the same reads thus: “5. Responsibility for development and maintenance of national highways.-It shall be the responsibility of the Central Government to develop and maintain in proper repair all national highways; but the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any function in relation to the development or maintenance of any national highway shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, also be exercisable by the Government of the State within which the national highway is situated or by any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to the State Government.” 37. Section 6 of the Act speaks about the power of the Central Government to issue directions and the same reads thus: “6. Power to issue directions.-The Central Government may give directions to the Government of any State as to the carrying out in the State of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, notification or other made thereunder.” 38. Section 9 of the Act speaks about the power of the Central Government to make rules and the same reads thus: “9. Section 9 of the Act speaks about the power of the Central Government to make rules and the same reads thus: “9. Power to make rules. -(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: (a) the manner in which, and the conditions subject to which, any function in relation to the development or maintenance of a national highway or any part thereof may be exercised by the State Government or any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or the State Government; [(aa) the manner in which the amount shall be deposited with the competent authority under sub-sections (1) and (6) of section 3-H;] [(b) the rates at which fees for services rendered in relation to the use of ferries, permanent bridges, temporary bridges and tunnels on any national highway [and the use of sections of any national highway] may be levied, and the manner in which such fees shall be collected, under section 7;] (c) the periodical inspection of national highways and the submission of inspection reports to the Central Government; (d) the reports on works carried out on national highways; (e) any other matter for which provision should be made under this Act. [(3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.]” 39. On the aspect of objections, let us consider what the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph (8) of the decision in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. On the aspect of objections, let us consider what the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph (8) of the decision in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. [ (2005) 13 SCC 477 ], held, as under: “8. The absence of plan also renders the right to file objections under Section 3C(1) nugatory. In the absence of a Plan, it is impossible to ascertain or know which part of acquired land was to be used and in what manner. Without this knowledge no objections regarding use of land could be filed. Since the objection regarding use of the land had been given up by the writ petitioners, we need not go any further in this aspect. We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under sub-section 3A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. This answers the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the NHAI that failure to file objections disentitles Writ Petitioners to object to the acquisition. The Act confers no general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. ( AIR 1999 SC 3822 ). In our view, this judgment has no application in the facts of the present case where right to object is a very limited right. The case cited is a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 5A. Failure to exercise that right could be said to be acquiescence. The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object to acquisition of land except on the question of its user. Therefore, the present objection has to be decided independently of the right to file objections. De hors the right to file objection, the validity of the Notification has to be considered. The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object to acquisition of land except on the question of its user. Therefore, the present objection has to be decided independently of the right to file objections. De hors the right to file objection, the validity of the Notification has to be considered. Failure to file objection to the notification under Section 3C, therefore, cannot non-suit the Writ Petitioners in this case.” (emphasis supplied) 40. In the decision extracted supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that the National Highways Act, 1956, gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under sub-section 3A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. The said proposition has been reiterated in Union of India (UOI) v. Kushala Shetty and Ors. reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69 , wherein at paragraph 28, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” (emphasis supplied) 41. What is impugned in the Writ Petition is Exhibit-P7 dated 2.5.2013, a notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire land, for the purpose of building, maintenance, management and operation of a National Highway or part thereof. Exhibit-P10 notification dated 24.12.2013 is the brief description of the lands to be acquired, with or without structure, falling within the stretch of lands from Km. 185.980 to Km. 260.200 of the National Highway No.17 in Kozhikode district, in the State of Kerala. 42. Exercise of powers under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 is mainly questioned on the basis that the alignment affects the property of the appellant, besides others. Secondly, a writ of mandamus is sought for to consider the objections. 43. As stated above, we have taken note of the decisions in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. and Union of India (UOI) v. Kushala Shetty and Ors. (cited supra), as to what extent the landowner or an interested person can object in the matter of acquisition of land for the purposes mentioned in Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956. 44. After the issuance of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, any person interested, in terms of Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, is entitled to submit his objections. As stated supra, though the appellant has submitted objections, after 21 days from the date of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, the same has been considered and rejected. Thus, proceedings insofar as acquisition of land is completed. 45. Section 4 of the National Highways Act, 1956 deals with vesting of National Highways in the Union. Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 speaks about the responsibility for development and maintenance of national highways. Thus, proceedings insofar as acquisition of land is completed. 45. Section 4 of the National Highways Act, 1956 deals with vesting of National Highways in the Union. Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 speaks about the responsibility for development and maintenance of national highways. As per Section 5, it shall be the responsibility of the Central Government to develop and maintain in proper repair all national highways; but the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any function in relation to the development or maintenance of any national highway shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, also be exercisable by the Government of the State within which the national highway is situated or by any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or to the State Government. 46. Section 11 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 speaks about the power of the Central Government to vest or entrust any national highway in the Authority. Section 11 states that the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, vest in, or entrust to, the Authority, such national highway or any stretch thereof as may be specified in such notification. 47. The question of Central Government, developing and maintaining the National Highways or subject to such conditions, if any, to exercise such works to the State Governments, within which the National Highways are situated, or any other officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, or to the State Government, is not a condition precedent for declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire any land for the purposes mentioned in Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 or to issue any notification under Section 3D of the said Act, 1956. 48. That apart, notification to be issued under Section 11 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 is also for a different purpose, and not a precondition for acquisition. That is why, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the contentions, as stated above. 49. The respondents, in detail, have explained, as to how the acquisition proceedings were concluded. Giving due consideration to the entire material on record and the statutory provisions, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned judgment warranting interference is appeal. 49. The respondents, in detail, have explained, as to how the acquisition proceedings were concluded. Giving due consideration to the entire material on record and the statutory provisions, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned judgment warranting interference is appeal. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.