JUDGMENT : It is very ubiquitous in our State that the nature and attributes of properties are at variance from the entries relating to it in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and such other Revenue Records; and this has created the controversy presented in these cases. 2. The properties of the petitioners in the above Writ Petitions are described as “Wet lands” in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), but are stated to be far from such attributes presently. 3. The petitioners assert that their lands have remained with all the features of a “Garden/Dry Land” even prior to the year 2008, when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land, Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Paddy Land Act” for ease), was brought into force and that this is incontestable since they are not included in the “Data Bank”, prepared under its sanction. 4. While so, it transpires that the lands in question in these cases were acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and when the final notification under Section 3D of the National Highway Act, (“NH Act” for short) was issued, they have been described as “Wet lands”, adopting the entries in the BTR. 5. The petitioners thus apprehend that, solely because their lands are shown as “Wet lands”, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) will grant them lower compensation than their real present value. 6. The petitioners predicate that the 'CALA' has illogically accepted the entries in the 'BTR', solely because the Government of India, through its order dated 14th August, 2020 – a copy of which is appended as Ext.P16 in W.P.(C)No.3267 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “GOI Order” for convenience) – has mandated that the value of a land can only be assessed on the basis of its Revenue Records. 7. The petitioners contend that the above mentioned order of the Government of India is illegal, because the 'CALA' is enjoined to act implicitly as per the provisions of the applicable Statutes and Regulations; and its statutory jurisdiction and competence cannot be fettered or interdicted by any Authority, in the manner as has been done through this order. 8. 7. The petitioners contend that the above mentioned order of the Government of India is illegal, because the 'CALA' is enjoined to act implicitly as per the provisions of the applicable Statutes and Regulations; and its statutory jurisdiction and competence cannot be fettered or interdicted by any Authority, in the manner as has been done through this order. 8. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Ext.P16 order in W.P.(C)No.3267/2021, as also the Notification issued under Section 3D of the 'NH Act', to the extent to which it relates to their acquired lands, be set aside; and the 'CALA' be directed to assess the value of their properties in terms of the Right to Fair Transparency RFCTLARR and Act for short), taking its present physical state and attributes alone into consideration and not as per its description in the BTR. 9. I have heard Sri.Mohammed Shah -the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases; Sri.Bidan Chandran-learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI and Smt.Resmi Thomas -learned Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents. 10. Smt.Resmi Thomas confirmed that the notification under Section 3(D) of the NH Act, with respect to the properties in question, has already been published; and thus asserted that this writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable, because once the said notification had been so issued, the petitioners cannot challenge it, on account of the statutory bar under Section 3D(4) of the NH Act; and that it is now for them to approach the 'CALA' and establish the value of their properties, if they are so interested. 11. The learned Government Pleader, maintained that, as far as the tenor and description of the properties are concerned, only the Revenue Records could have been relied upon and not the 'Data Bank', which is not one such. She thus prayed that these Writ Petitions be dismissed. 12. Sri.Bidan Chandran -the learned counsel for NHAI, argued more or less in terms of the afore submissions of Smt.Resmi Thomas, reiterating that once the Section 3(D) notification had been published, the petitioners cannot assail it in any Court of law, because of the statutory bar under Section 3D(A) of the NH Act; explaining that this is also because it has been settled after the imperative process prior to it, having been fully complied with. 13. 13. Pertinently, Sri.Bidan Chandran, then maintained that these writ petitions are unnecessary to be considered by this Court on its merits, because whatever be the classification or description of the properties shown in the Section 3D notification, it is for the 'CALA' to determine its market value at the time of the initial Section 3A notification, after making suitable enquiries. He submitted that the petitioners must, therefore, approach the 'CALA' appropriately with their documents and establish the nature of their land, as also its physical attributes, when the said Authority determines the amounts due to them under Section 3G of the NH Act; for which purpose, a public notice under Section 3G(3) of the NH Act will be published by it. 14. Sri.Bidan Chandran, thereafter, invited my attention to the stipulations in Section 3I of the NH Act, to tell me that the 'CALA' -for the purposes of determining the amount payable to the owners or claimants of properties acquired-obtains all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, including for summoning and examination of witnesses; delivery and production of documents; reception of affidavit and requisitioning any public record. He thus argued that the 'CALA' has been vested statutorily with powers of wide amplitude to determine the value of the land and that such can neither be fettered by, nor can he be dictated to by any other Authority, including the Government of India. 15. Sri.Bidan Chandran, however, then pointed out that the 'GOI Order' only relates to the manner in which the description and classification of the acquired land is to be recorded, mandating that, for such purpose, the Revenue Records alone can be relied upon. He contended that if the petitioners have a case that their acquired properties – on account of subsequent conversion or natural causes – now obtains a different physical status, thus commanding a larger value, then it is for them to approach the 'CALA' with all relevant and germane materials, documents and inputs, to establish so, when the process under Section 3G of the NH Act is initiated and completed by the said Authority. He thus prayed that these writ petitions – which effectively impugns the Section 3D notification – be found to be incompetent and hence be dismissed. 16. He thus prayed that these writ petitions – which effectively impugns the Section 3D notification – be found to be incompetent and hence be dismissed. 16. The Syllogistical stands and positions of the rival sides being so noticed, it is irrefragable that certain jural declarations become inevitable with respect to the powers of the 'CALA', under the conspectus of the NH Act. 17. Without doubt, Smt.Resmi Thomas and Sri.Bidan Chandran are right in arguing that, as per Section 3D(4) of the 'NH Act', the petitioners are proscribed from calling into question the notification issued under Section 3(D) thereof. This is what the Section declares unambigously and hence I see no competence for this Court to hold otherwise or to read it down. 18. However, this is actually not the real issue. 19. The petitioners have projected no cause against the notification issued under Section 3D of the 'NH Act', except that they are aggrieved that their acquired properties are described therein as 'wet lands'. For this, they accuse the impugned 'GOI order', in having forced the CALA to report to the Government of India so, leading to the Section 3D notification being published, containing such entries. 20. Indubitably, thus, the omphalus of the petitioners’ grievance is that the 'CALA' ought to have assessed the present real nature of the acquired lands even before he made his report to the Government of the India, as is required under Section 3D(1) of the NH Act, on which the latter has now edificed the final notification under the said Section. They allege that the 'CALA' was incapacitated from not doing so solely because of the 'GOI order' and thus accuse the Government of India is having fettered the said Authority unlawfully. It is thus that they predicate that the Section 3D notification, to the extent to which it relates to their properties, is illegal. 21. The question whether the 'CALA' was in error in having reported the nature of the properties of the petitioners to the Government of India based on the entries in the BTR, is, however, lesser in relevance to the question if the said Authority is to assess its value solely on such basis. 22. If this Court is to hold the answer to the latter aspect to the negative, then the former would pale into insignificance. 23. 22. If this Court is to hold the answer to the latter aspect to the negative, then the former would pale into insignificance. 23. For this enquiry, the Scheme of the 'NH Act', will require to be glanced upon: (a) Section 3A of the 'NH Act' authorizes the Central Government to notify its intention to acquire land/lands for the purposes enumerated therein. (b) Section 3B, thereupon, sanctions survey, measurement and other enquiry of the lands notified under Section 3A. (c) Any person interested in the land covered by the notification under Section 3A can then object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned Section 3A. (d) When either no objections are made or when such are disallowed by the 'CALA', the said Authority will send a report to the Central Government, which will then lead to the Final notification under Section 3D; consequent to which, the lands absolutely vest in the Central Government, free from all encumbrance. (e) When the land is thus acquired, the CALA will determine its value and pay the owner and/or the person entitled to compensation under the Act. 24. It is thus perspicuous that the 'NH Act' does not permit the valuation of the acquired land at the time when the 'CALA' reports to the Central Government under Section 3D (1) thereof, which is the precursor action to the publication of the notice under the said Section. All that the 'CALA' is enjoined to do at that stage – if any objection to the Section 3A notification is received by him – is to examine if the use of the land is for the purposes mentioned in Section 3A(1) and nothing else. However, when he makes his report to the Central Government, he certainly has to show the description of the lands, for which – at that stage– he can only rely upon the Revenue records. 25. One cannot, in such perspective, find the 'GOI order' to be erroneous or in any manner intruding into the jurisdiction of the 'CALA', since it only says that the lands be described in the manner available in the Revenue Records. 26. Now we come to the acme stage of this litigation: an examination if the CALA is constrained to value the lands, when he does so under Section 3G of the NH Act, solely being guided by the entries in the Revenue Records. 26. Now we come to the acme stage of this litigation: an examination if the CALA is constrained to value the lands, when he does so under Section 3G of the NH Act, solely being guided by the entries in the Revenue Records. 27. Upfront, the answer to this has to be to the negative, because the NH Act imposes no such limitation. On the contrary and more importantly, Section 3G (7) of the NH Act commands the 'CALA' (as also the Arbitrator in the next stage), to take into consideration, among the other criteria mentioned therein, the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A, while determining compensation under Section 3G(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is the 'market value' of the land at the time of the Section 3A notification which is to be taken into account by the 'CALA', which will have to be ascertained through relevant and applicable enquiry, based on all germane inputs – one of which alone can be the classification of the land in the Revenue records. 28. That so said, it is here that the submissions of Sri.Bidan Chandran -learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, assumes significance. As rightly shown by him, while the 'CALA' acts under Section 3G of the 'NH Act', he is vested with the powers of a Civil Court, including for summoning and examining witnesses; delivery and production of documents; reception of affidavits and requisitioning any public record. These powers are unequivocally granted to him by Section 3I of the 'NH Act'. 29. Therefore, if the 'CALA' is to merely assess the value of the acquired properties confined by the entries in the Revenue Records, or even by the Fair Value notification, such expansive powers would not have been statutorily vested on him. The purpose sub-serving Section 3I of the NH Act is to equip the 'CALA' to determine the real market value of the property, at the time of issue of the notification under Section 3A; which he will have to accomplish, adverting to all genuine materials and inputs, among which would be the Revenue Records and Fair Value notifications. 30. The purpose sub-serving Section 3I of the NH Act is to equip the 'CALA' to determine the real market value of the property, at the time of issue of the notification under Section 3A; which he will have to accomplish, adverting to all genuine materials and inputs, among which would be the Revenue Records and Fair Value notifications. 30. To paraphrase, the 'CALA' is statutorily obliged to make a comprehensive enquiry – adverting to the documents of title; the physical nature of the property; the purposes for which it had been put to use prior to acquisition; the nature of the locality; the infrastructural development of the area where is situated; the nature of the road which it abuts; the ease of access to it etc., – juxtaposed by the entries in the Revenue Records and the Fair Value notifications. The considerations above enumerated, of course, are not exhaustive. 31. Viewed as above, it becomes luculent that, as rightly contended by Sri.Bidan Chandran, the petitioners need not have impugned the 'GOI Order' or the notification issued under Section 3D of the 'NH Act', in order for them to claim adequate compensation for their acquired land. 32. All that the petitioners need to do is to approach the 'CALA' with all the documents, materials and inputs, which rely on in substantiation of the value they claim for their properties; which will certainly be then evaluated and assessed by the said Authority, while he completes the statutory exercise under Section 3G of the 'NH Act'. Resultantly, I dispose of these writ petitions, leaving full liberty to the petitioners to approach the 'CALA', if the proceedings under Section 3G of the 'NH Act' has commenced, or when it commences; with a consequential direction to the said Authority to complete the assessment of the value of the lands in question adverting to the same and after affording necessary opportunities to the petitioners, keeping in mind the afore observations. These Writ Petitions are thus ordered.