JUDGMENT : 1. Under challenge in these writ petitions are the notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“the Act” for short) and the subsequent proceedings, which include the fixing of the alignment of the Koyilandy Bypass from Nandi to Chengottukadavu from km 214 to km 225 as part of four laning of NH-66 from Thalappady km 17 to Vengalam km 230 in the State of Kerala. 2. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and Exhibits in W.P. (C) No. 35389 of 2019 shall be referred to. 3. The Central Government by Ext.P12 notification dated 08.11.2017 issued under Section 3A of the Act declared its intention to acquire land for the purpose of widening of NH-17 stretch starting from km 185.980 to km 260.200 in Kozhikode district. The substance of notification was published in two local newspapers as contemplated under the Act. The land under acquisition was surveyed and marked under Section 3B and the objectors were heard. Later, Ext.P14 declaration was issued under Section 3D of the Act on 27.12.2018, consequent to which the land vested in the Central Government. Thereafter Ext.P16 additional notification was issued under Section 3A of the Act on 08.03.2019 for clearly and exactly identifying the properties covered under the original notification. Ext.P16 however, did not involve any land which was not covered under Exhibit P12. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P17 public notice was issued under Section 3G(3) inviting claims from persons interested in the land to be acquired. Immediately thereafter the instant writ petitions were filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Exhibit P12, Exhibit P14, Exhibit P16 and Exhibit P17 notifications and quash the portion of notification in respect of Quilandi Bypass Road, from Nandi to Chenkkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 as illegal. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to acquire the land for the 4-laning of NH -17 (New NH-66) in Kerala State equally from both sides from the central line of the existing National Highway instead of Quilandi Bypass Road. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to acquire the petitioners’ land for the 4-laning of NH-17 (New NH-66), from Nandi to Chenkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 without conducting the Environment and Social Impact Assessment and a comparative cost benefit analysis. 4. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to acquire the petitioners’ land for the 4-laning of NH-17 (New NH-66), from Nandi to Chenkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 without conducting the Environment and Social Impact Assessment and a comparative cost benefit analysis. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Government, as early as in the year 1972, had acquired land for widening the existing highway to 30 metres. While carrying out the acquisition as aforesaid, the local authority had insisted upon the owners of shops on either side of the highway that they can continue to occupy their buildings only on condition that they shall voluntarily vacate as and when the highway is required to be widened. In view of the above, the shop owners were not permitted to put up any new construction on the sides of the existing highway. On two earlier occasions, 3A notification was issued on 2.12.2009 and 8.2.2011, but the same lapsed due to various reasons. In the year 2011, in view of the serious objection by the Action Committee formed against the formation of the bypass, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board intervened in the matter and the objections were forwarded to the National Highway Authorities. Later, based on complaints filed by the local residents, the Petitions Committee of the Kerala Legislative Assembly had conducted a local enquiry and they had submitted Ext.P7 report on 23.07.2012 wherein it is stated that no proper study was conducted regarding the social as well as environmental impact of the project. The alignment of the bypass was fixed without taking note of the fact that about 532 buildings would have to be demolished. As a matter of fact, if the width of the existing highway is increased to 45 metres only about 215 buildings and 22 houses need to be demolished. The petitioners would contend that as per the IRC Code 73:1980, the normal road width for built up areas in plain and rolling terrain is 30 metres and if the said criteria is adopted, there was no need to opt for a bypass. It is further contended that the respondents are proceeding with the constructions without obtaining an Environmental Clearance. Ignoring all these aspects, Ext.P12 notification was issued on 22.11.2017 and though the petitioners mounted a challenge before the National Green Tribunal, their application was dismissed as premature. It is further contended that the respondents are proceeding with the constructions without obtaining an Environmental Clearance. Ignoring all these aspects, Ext.P12 notification was issued on 22.11.2017 and though the petitioners mounted a challenge before the National Green Tribunal, their application was dismissed as premature. According to the petitioners, as per the provisions of the Act, a declaration under Section 3D has to be published within one year from the date of publication of Ext.P12 notification. In the instant case, the same was not done. Without taking note of the fact that original notification had lapsed, the 8th respondent has published a public notice under Section 3G(3) of the Act directing the affected persons to appear before him. It is contended that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents are irregular and illegal warranting interference by this Court. 5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that a transparent procedure was adopted before issuing the 3A notification. The DPR consultant prepared a draft feasibility report and a draft alignment, which was presented before the persons concerned and it was after incorporating the required changes that the final alignment was fixed. The District Collector after complying with the formalities forwarded the same to the Government and it was only after completing the entire process that the 3A notification was issued. Immediately thereafter, the officers conducted a survey and inspection under Section 3B and the alignment was again rechecked by superimposing the 45 metres proposed road on the Field Measurement Book maintained by the revenue authorities. An additional notification under Section 3A had to be issued as some of the survey numbers were found left out at the time of issuance of the original notification. However, no additional land was involved warranting the issuance of a fresh 3A notification. Every person interested in the land was permitted to raise his objections to the user of the land for the purpose. It is further contended that the Koyilandy Bypass has a total length of 11 km and is intended to bypass the busy Koyilandy town. The Right of Way in the existing National Highway is 18.30 metres on an average and it passes through the heart of the town. If the width is enhanced to 45 metres, more than 550 buildings most of which are commercial in nature, would be affected. The Right of Way in the existing National Highway is 18.30 metres on an average and it passes through the heart of the town. If the width is enhanced to 45 metres, more than 550 buildings most of which are commercial in nature, would be affected. In addition, about 100 to 150 residential buildings would be affected in the villages of Nandi, Moodai, Arakkulam and Koyilandy town. All these aspects were taken note of before proceeding to issue notification declaring the intention to acquire the land. It is further stated that as per the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 22.08.2013, expansion of National Highways upto 100 km involving additional right of way or land acquisition upto 40 m and 60 m realignment or bypasses are exempted from the purview of the earlier notification and therefore, no environmental clearance is required to be obtained. It is further stated that the assertion made by the petitioners that the original notification had ceased to have any effect as the declaration of acquisition under Section 3D was not published within a period of one year cannot have any application. It is contended that a certain Sri. Raveendran and three others had filed W.P. (C) No. 39315 of 2017 before this Court and by an order dated 20.07.2018, this Court had ordered that no coercive action shall be taken with the present alignment of Koyilandy Bypass. The said interim order was modified only on 19.11.2018 by ordering that the taking of possession shall be done only after complying with the due procedure in terms of Act 43 of 1956. It is contended that the stay order was in force till 19.11.2018 and if the 62 days period is exempted, the 3D notification issued on 27.12.2018 is well within time. It is further stated that the land which is included in the alignment, which after the measurements were found to be needed for the project and which was missed out in the 3D notification, was again notified under Section 3A of the Act and all the objections received under Section 3C were considered. 6. I have heard Smt. Daisy A. Philipose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Bidan Chandran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NHAI, Sri. P. Vijayakumar, the learned ASGI and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned Government Pleader. 7. 6. I have heard Smt. Daisy A. Philipose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Bidan Chandran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NHAI, Sri. P. Vijayakumar, the learned ASGI and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned Government Pleader. 7. The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the Act 48 of 1956 is that once the Central Government is satisfied that any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof, then, it shall declare its intention to acquire such land by issuing a notification in the official Gazette giving brief description of the land. The substance of the notification is also required to be published in two local newspapers of which one has to be in a vernacular language. Any person interested in the land can file an objection within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Such objection is required to be made to the Competent Authority in writing. Thereafter, the Competent Authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of hearing either in person or through a legal practitioner. This exercise is to be followed by an order of the Competent Authority either allowing or rejecting the objections. Where no objection is made to the Competent Authority in terms of S.3C(1) or where the objections made by the interested persons have been disallowed, the Competent Authority is required to submit a report to the Central Government, which shall then issue a notification in the official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in S.3A(1). On publication of declaration under S.3D(1), the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. sub-section (3) of S.3D provides that where no declaration under Sub-section (1) is published within a period of one year from the date of publication of notification under S.3A(1), the said notification shall cease to have any effect. By virtue of proviso to S.3D(3), the period during which any action or proceeding taken in pursuance of notification issued under S.3A(1) remains stayed by a Court shall be excluded while computing the period of one year specified in S.3D(3). 8. Section 3C of the Act provides for hearing of objections. By virtue of proviso to S.3D(3), the period during which any action or proceeding taken in pursuance of notification issued under S.3A(1) remains stayed by a Court shall be excluded while computing the period of one year specified in S.3D(3). 8. Section 3C of the Act provides for hearing of objections. It reads as follows: “(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 3A, 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.” (Emphasis supplied) What the provision says is that a person interested in the land can raise objection within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A, but the objections shall be limited to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. In Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory, (2005) 13 SCC 477 the Apex Court had occasion to hold that under Act 48 of 1956, there is no right to object to acquisition of land under Section 3C of the Act except on the question of its user. 9. In the case on hand, the first contention raised by the petitioners is that the respondents have acted with mala-fides in the sense that instead of opting to widen the existing highway to a width of 30 metres, they have chosen to build a bypass having a length of about 11 km. According to the petitioners, if the existing highway was widened, the damage that is likely to be caused would be minimum. I find no merit in the submissions advanced. It has come out from the submissions that the existing highway passes through the heart of Koyilandy town. Admittedly, there are commercial buildings on either side of the existing highway, which is very congested at present. I find no merit in the submissions advanced. It has come out from the submissions that the existing highway passes through the heart of Koyilandy town. Admittedly, there are commercial buildings on either side of the existing highway, which is very congested at present. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the average width of the existing highway is about 19 metres. To alleviate the unsafe conditions and to remove the congestion of the existing road network, the highway is required to be widened to a width of 45 metres. The expert body, after interaction with the stakeholders and in tune with the provisions of the Act, have decided to construct a bypass. The question is whether the petitioners can dictate the manner in which the alignments are to be fixed. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 69 had reminded that the 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 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. Unless the alignment fixed is found to be ex - facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere. 10. The 2nd contention advanced by the petitioners is the failure of the respondents to get an environmental clearance. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. Unless the alignment fixed is found to be ex - facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere. 10. The 2nd contention advanced by the petitioners is the failure of the respondents to get an environmental clearance. As per the notification dated 22.08.2013, the expansion of a National Highway project needs prior environmental clearance in case (a) the expansion of the National Highway Project is greater than 100 km and (b) it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 metres on existing alignments and 60 metres on realignments or bypasses. In the case on hand, as the width of the bypass is just 45 metres, there is no requirement to obtain prior environmental clearance. This aspect has been taken note of by the Apex Court in National Highways Authority of India vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu and Another, (2021) SCC Online SC 28. Para No. 7 of the judgment is extracted below for convenience: “7. A plain reading of Item 7(f) to the Notification dated 22.08.2013 would make it clear that expansion of a National Highway project needs prior environmental clearance in case (a) expansion of the National Highway project is greater than 100 km and (b) it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses. There is no ambiguity in the above provision as it gives no scope for any doubt. The distance of 100 km is important as expansion of National Highways below 100 km needs no prior environmental clearance. If the project involves expansion of a National Highway greater than 100 km, prior environmental clearance would be required only if it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 metres on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or by passes.” 11. In that view of the matter, the said contention advanced by the petitioners cannot be accepted. 12. The next contention advanced by the petitioners is that the notification under Section 3D was published only after a year from the date of publication of Section 3A notification and therefore the said notification shall cease to have any effect. Section 3D of the Act provides for declaration of acquisition. 12. The next contention advanced by the petitioners is that the notification under Section 3D was published only after a year from the date of publication of Section 3A notification and therefore the said notification shall cease to have any effect. Section 3D of the Act provides for declaration of acquisition. The said provision reads as follows: 3D. (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 sub-section (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. (Emphasis supplied) 13. The proviso to Section 3D (3) says that while computing the period of one year, the period during which any action or proceedings taken in pursuance to the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. The words used are “any action or proceeding” and a wide interpretation is to be given. If by the orders issued by the Court, the NHAI is interdicted from initiating any action or proceeding, the proviso will be attracted and the said period will have to be excluded. The words used are “any action or proceeding” and a wide interpretation is to be given. If by the orders issued by the Court, the NHAI is interdicted from initiating any action or proceeding, the proviso will be attracted and the said period will have to be excluded. In the case on hand, Ext.P12 notification under Section 3A was issued on 08.11.2017. This Court by Ext.P20 order dated 20.07.2018 had ordered that further coercive steps shall not be taken by the respondents on the strength of the modified alignment. This, in my opinion, will amount to an interdiction on the NHAI to proceed further with any action or proceeding that they are bound to initiate in pursuance of the notification. It was only on 19.09.2018 that the said order was modified by directing that further steps of dispossessing the petitioners from the properties in question or taking possession of the properties shall be done only after complying with all due procedure in terms of the National Highways Act. Proviso to Section 3D(3) says that in computing the period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of notification issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. I am not impressed with the contention advanced by Smt. Daisy A. Philipose that the entire proceedings have not been stayed and hence the benefit of the proviso cannot be extended to the respondents. I hold that the declaration was well within time if the period of stay was excluded and the contentions forcefully advanced by the learned counsel should fail. 14. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any grounds for interference. 15. These writ petitions fail and will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.