JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. (C) No. 22852 of 2021 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 03.11.2021. The subject issue relates to the acquisition of a property belonging to the first respondent/writ petitioner and a building situated in the said property. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition were, that Exhibit P4 order passed by the National Highways Authority dated 26.07.2021 notifying that if any house/structure is acquired after paying the full compensation the entire building should be demolished; to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 i.e. the Deputy General Manager (T) and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Kozhikode; the District Collector, Kannur and the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Kannur, to limit the acquisition, destruction etc. only to those portion of the property covered under the notification and to those property for which award has been passed as per Exhibit P1 award notice dated 01.03.2021 bearing No. A1-7/2012(10) (LAC No. 5050) passed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, LA (NH) Unit-II, Collectorate, Kannur; to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to stay away from the remaining portion of the property and the building comprised in Re Sy. No. 27/8 of Muzhappilangad village, Kannur District and to declare that the respondents are not authorized to take over or destruct the portion of the residential house situated in the property, which was not the subject matter of the acquisition as per Exhibit P1 award. 2. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the submissions made by the writ petitioner and hearing the standing counsel for the National Highways Authority of India and assimilating the fact situations, held as follows: “5. The disputation afore is certainly in the realm of facts, which this Court cannot adjudicate or evaluate, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The disputation afore is certainly in the realm of facts, which this Court cannot adjudicate or evaluate, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. That apart, if there is no statutory or regulatory restrictions in maintaining the remaining portion of the building in the area in question, I fail to understand why the respondents should insist on the same be demolished; but, of course, if there are any such restrictions, then certainly they will be entitled to remove it for the benefit of the public at large and for the safety of the users of the Highway. 7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that this issue must be considered by the jurisdictional Project Officer of the NHAI, after hearing the petitioner, so that if there are no regulatory or safety requirements for demolishing the building, it can be allowed to stand; but if, on the other hand, it is found to be contrary to it, then certainly steps for demolition of the same must be taken forward. 8. For the afore purpose, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the Project Officer, Calicut of the first respondent-NHAI, at 11 a.m. on 15.11.2021; on which day, the said Authority will either hear him or fix another date for hearing and then decide whether there are any statutory or safety or regulatory restrictions in maintaining the building in question, leading to the issue of an appropriate order and to communicate the same to the petitioner. If the Project Officer is to find that the building can be allowed to continue, then steps for demolition shall be deferred; but if, on the contrary, it is found that the building cannot be allowed to stand for the afore reasons, then steps be taken for demolition of the same, after following due procedure. 9. At this time, Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader, intervened to say that if the Project Officer is to find that the remaining portion of the building can be allowed to continue, then the petitioner must be directed to refund the value of the entire building as made in Ext.P1 Award. 9. At this time, Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader, intervened to say that if the Project Officer is to find that the remaining portion of the building can be allowed to continue, then the petitioner must be directed to refund the value of the entire building as made in Ext.P1 Award. Though I do not propose to speak on this affirmatively-it being not within the jurisdiction of this Court in this writ petition-I leave liberty to the competent Authority to take necessary action in terms law, in such eventuality.” It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the National Highways Authority of India and its officials have come up in appeal. 3. The paramount contention advanced in the appeal is that the entire building situated in an extent of 0.93 Ares of property in Re Sy. No. 27/8 of Muzhappilangad village was acquired along with the land in question. In fact, the acquisition notification was issued by the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 to acquire the land measuring 0.93 Ares and the portion of the building situated in the said extent of land. However, the writ petitioner has made a request for acquisition of the entire building since if a portion is acquired and demolished the strength of the building would be lost. 4. An additional statement is filed by the National Highways Authority of India as directed by this court and along with the same, the request made by the writ petitioner/1st respondent to acquire the whole building as against a portion, and other documents are produced. Annexure A1 is the request made by the writ petitioner dated 30.03.2019. It reads thus: “Seal of the Tahsildar Evidencing receipt of copy 2020/19 Non judicial stamp Rs. 5 R. Raju, Thuyyath House, Muzhappilangad Village Special Tahsildar, Special LA (NH), Kannur. Sir, As part of the widening of the National Highways, my land comprised in Survey No. 27/8 along with residential property no. M.P. II 119 has been acquired. One half of the residential house is included therein. I tried to retain the remaining half of the building. When I consulted an engineer, he opined that since it is a three-storied building, once the pillars and beams are removed, the remaining half of the building cannot be retained. M.P. II 119 has been acquired. One half of the residential house is included therein. I tried to retain the remaining half of the building. When I consulted an engineer, he opined that since it is a three-storied building, once the pillars and beams are removed, the remaining half of the building cannot be retained. Therefore, I humbly request you to acquire the entire residential house and pay compensation for the same. Muzhappilangad Village Dated: 30.03.2019 Yours Sd/- R. Raju.” 5. Annexure A2 is a Kychit (letter surrendering possession), which reads thus: “Ref. A1-7/2012(10) (LAC No. 5050 A) Kacheetu 1. R. Raju residing at Thuyyath House, Near Edakkad Police Station, Muzhappilangad Desam, Muzhappilangad Village. 2. Sr. Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, Edakkad Branch. The Kacheetu was executed by the aforementioned to the Special Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector of the Special Tahsildar's office LA (NH) Unit-II, Kannur. As per the Order of the Special Tahsildar, Kannur LA (NH), with ref. A1-7/2012 (10) (LAC No. 5050(A) in pursuance to the widening of the NH-17 into 4 lanes between chainage KM 148.00 to 171.200, I/We hereby declare that we have surrendered possession of the properties along with the structures and improvements therein which was in our absolute possession and enjoyment. The properties are described in detail, herein-below: Village: Muzhappilangad Block Number/Desam: Muzhappilangad Resurvey No. 27/8 New Survey No. 27/17 Extent: 0.0093 Hectare Improvements: As per Mahazar Building: Partial/Whole On the 28th day of May, 2021 possession taken. Name and signature of the person to whom it is entrusted: Joy Francis Revenue Inspector (LA) NH Unit II Kannur Handed over to Competent Authority and Spl. Tahsildar (LA)/NH Unit No. 2, Kannur.” 6. Therefore, it is clear that on the basis of the request made by the petitioner, the entire building was acquired and the possession was handed over. The contention put forth by the writ petitioner is that it is not reflected from Exhibit P1 award as to whether the entire building is acquired or not. But on a perusal of Exhibit P1 it is clear that the property specified above and the entire building is acquired and compensation is ordered for the property and the entire building. Therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the inadequate compensation it was for the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedy in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the inadequate compensation it was for the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedy in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The case put forth by the National Highways Authority in the appeal is that a portion of the building cannot be permitted to be retained by the writ petitioner since it is situated close to the National Highway alignment and it would be dangerous to the road users. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants Sri. B.G. Bidan Chandran; learned counsel for the writ petitioner/first respondent Sri. Siju Kamalasanan; learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. V. Tekchand and perused the pleadings and the materials on record. 8. The discussion made above and the contents of the documents extracted above would make it clear that the competent authority has acquired the entire building on the basis of the request made by the writ petitioner. It is also clear from Exhibit P1 award that the compensation is paid to the entire building since nowhere it is stated in Exhibit P1 award that only a portion of the building was granted the compensation. The petitioner having received the compensation is not entitled to turn around and contend that the petitioner is entitled to repossess the portion of the building which was not sought to be acquired as per the notification issued by the National Highways Authority. The National Highways Authority has paid the compensation, and therefore, as per Exhibit P4 general order dated 26.07.2021 issued by the authority, if any building is acquired, it has to be demolished in its entirety. Exhibit P4 general order reads thus: “74811118/NHAI/PIU-Kozhikode/2021/748 Dated: 26.07.2021 To, The Special Deputy Collector LA (NH) Collectorate, Civil Station, Kozhikode The Special Deputy Collector LA (NHAI) Mini Civil Station, Talliparamba at Kannur The Special Tahsildar LA (NH) Unit 2 Kannur The Special Deputy Collector LA (NH) Near Ayurvedho Hospital, Anangoor PO Kasargod Deputy Collector (Revenue) Competent Authority, Mahe The Special Tahasildar, LA (NH) Unit 2 Thalassery Subject: NHAI-PIU-Kozhikode Thalapady Km. 17.200 to Vengalam Km. 232.000 Demolition of Structures-reg. Sir, It is to state that while acquiring land & Houses/structures for various 6 laning projects in District Kasaragod, Kannur and Kozhikode, it has been noted that some structures are under partial acquisition as per the norms. However full compensation for entire Houses/structure is being paid to the land owner. 17.200 to Vengalam Km. 232.000 Demolition of Structures-reg. Sir, It is to state that while acquiring land & Houses/structures for various 6 laning projects in District Kasaragod, Kannur and Kozhikode, it has been noted that some structures are under partial acquisition as per the norms. However full compensation for entire Houses/structure is being paid to the land owner. In this regard it is Intimated that complete structures should be demolished for which full compensation has been considered. This may please be complied with strictly. Yours Truly Sd/- (Nirmal M. Zade) DGM (T) & PD PIU-KOZHIKODE.” 9. We find force in the contentions advanced by the appellants and we are of the firm view that once the building is acquired in accordance with law and paid the compensation for the entire building at the request of the owner, then the owner cannot make any claim as of right for retaining the portion of the building which was not notified. We are also of the view that it is for the authority to take decisions with respect to the manner in which an acquired property is to be utilized and also take into account the safety aspects to be followed. Any way, it is not a matter to be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there was no illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities on the part of the appellants. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, allow the appeal, and consequently, dismiss the writ petition. 11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.