JUDGMENT : Often than not, compulsory land acquisition leave a trail of throes, pangs and agony to many land owners. 2. This is why, as commonly seen in Courts: come Land Acquisition, comes litigation. 3. Acquisition for developmental purposes has been, historically, a contentious issue, not only in India, but all over the world. 4. Many threads of resistance run through such conflicts and justifiably so because land is not merely an important economic resource, but is sometimes central to individual and family identity, sentimental attachments, history and even culture. 5. Unsurprisingly, owners of land impel variegated reasons against acquisition and when it comes to development and creation of roads and Highways, amongst the most common of it all –at least from the experience of litigations – is that the alignment is unscientific, mala fide or without considering more feasible alternatives. 6. Posed in this writ petition, in the afore context is whether the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act ('NH Act', for short), is competent to alter the alignment of the Highway proposed by the Government, consequent to the publication of the final declaration under Section 3 D of the NH Act. 7. The petitioners are persons whose properties are affected by the acquisition of lands for the National Highway 66 and they say that they have raised objections against its alignment before the CALA -including by offering an alternate perspective -so that their properties can be saved to the extent possible, pointing out several infirmities in the process leading to the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act. 8. The petitioners say that, however, none of their objections were addressed appositely by the CALA and that Government of India has gone ahead and issued the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act; which has thus constrained them to approach this Court, assailing Exts.P16 to P18(a) and Exts.P28 and P32 proceedings of the CALA, which has rejected their objections and suggestions. 9. I have heard Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Vineetha Susan Thomas, appearing for the petitioners; Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.1 – Union ofIndia; Shri.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Sudhinkumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 – the Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and Smt.Resmi Thomas, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3. 10. 10. Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, opened his submissions vehemently arguing that, on the intervention of the 3rd respondent -CALA, the alignment had been altered several times in the past; but that when it came to the objections of his clients, said Authority refused to accede to it, thus causing the Government of India to issue a statutory notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act. He pointed out several instances from the plethora of documents on record to impress upon me that suggestions were made by the CALA with respect to the alteration of the alignment earlier proposed and that Government of India had acted upon them, thus leading to the present notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act. He predicated that, therefore, the CALA is still competent to change the alignment of the proposed Highway, particularly if there are vitiating factors -as have been pointed out by the petitioners, involved in the publication of the Section 3-D notification. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed and his clients' objections be directed to be properly reconsidered by the CALA; and to consequently order the Government to modify the Section 3-D notification appropriately. 11. Dr.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the NHAI, countered the afore submissions of Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, saying that, as is apodictic from Section 3-D of the NH Act, when the Central Government declares by notification in the official Gazette that the lands proposed for acquisition should be acquired for the purposes mentioned in Section 3-A thereof, they shall stand vested absolutely in the said Government free of all encumbrances. He argued that, therefore, upon the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act being published by the Government of India, it becomes absolute; and that neither can it be altered by any Authority, nor called into question by anyone, including the petitioners. 12. He argued that, therefore, upon the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act being published by the Government of India, it becomes absolute; and that neither can it be altered by any Authority, nor called into question by anyone, including the petitioners. 12. Dr.K.P.Satheesan then proceeded to expatiate his contentions showing me that, before the Section 3-D notification is issued, the CALA is statutorily enjoined to consider every objection from the touchstone of the provisions of Section 3-C of the NH Act; and that it is only when such objections are found to be without merit or liable to be rejected, that the Central Government issues the notification under Section 3-D. He thus retiringly contended that once the final notification is issued by the Government under Section 3-D of the NH Act, the CALA is rendered functus officio within the scope of Section 3-C of the NH Act and will not obtain any competence to consider any cause relating to the acquisition or alignment of the Highway on any ground thereafter. 13. Dr.K.P.Satheesan further submitted that, even as per Section 3-C of the NH Act, the jurisdiction of the CALA is confined to assess whether use of the land sought to be acquired would be for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3-A of the NH Act. He argued that, therefore, even at the stage where objections are considered by the CALA, he cannot alter the alignment, but can solely evaluate whether the lands are required for the purposes as are enumerated in Section 3-A of the NH Act. He accused that, however, the attempt of the petitioners herein is to alter the alignment itself, which is beyond the CALA; and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 14. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Sri.P.Vijayakumar and the learned Government Pleader, Smt.Reshmi Thomas, adopted the submissions of Dr.K.P.Satheesan as afore and argued that no cause can be now projected by the petitioners against the alignment, which has become final. They also, therefore, prayed that this Court may not enter into the merits of the objections raised by the petitioners against the alignment of the Highway, because, after the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act has been published – which is admitted this writ petition is not maintainable. 15. They also, therefore, prayed that this Court may not enter into the merits of the objections raised by the petitioners against the alignment of the Highway, because, after the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act has been published – which is admitted this writ petition is not maintainable. 15. As I proceed to assess and answer the afore rival contentions, I am cognizant that, though this Court has not yet spoken specifically on the power or competence of the CALA qua the alteration of the alignment of a National Highway, some judgments have touched upon it peripherally, but not answered it affirmatively because this issue was never raised directly therein. 16. As is unmistakable from the arguments of Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners singularly contend that their lands ought not have been acquired because the present alignment is faulty and scientifically erroneous. They assert that prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act by the Government of India, the CALA had made various recommendations for alteration of the alignment, which have all been accepted but that their request for change of alignment has been rejected, citing that said Authority obtains no power to do so. 17. Pertinently, Sri.Abraham Vakkanal is right in part; but, ironically, it is on account of the logic impelled by his clients that this Court will be now forced to find against them. 18. I say as above because, going by the statutory Scheme of Section 3-D of the NH Act, after the CALA considers all the objections under Section 3-C thereof, they are obliged to submit a report to the Central Government, based on which, said Government then issues the final notification under it. 19. Axiomatically, therefore, if the CALA is to find any objections preferred before them –under Section 3-C of the NH Act -to be genuine and to thus conclude that a land included in the original alignment is not required for the purposes mentioned in Section 3-A of it, then their report will certainly record so, and will have to be taken into account by the Government of India, while the Section 3-D notification is issued, which may entail or otherwise the alteration of the original proposal or the alignment. Should any change to the proposal or alignment happen for such reason, it is not because the CALA recommended so, but solely as an after – action to the exclusion of certain lands found by the said Authority to be unfit or unnecessary within the criteria under Section 3-A of the NH Act. This may sometimes happen as a consequence and there is nothing unusual about this, because this is how the statutory mandate provides and operates. 20. That said, the compelling issue in this case is whether the CALA was justified in rejecting the petitioners' objections, through the impugned orders, saying that he has no jurisdiction to alter the alignment. 21. An epigrammatic survey of the design of the NH Act would throw an insight into this query. 22. Section 3-A of the NH Act provides that when the Central Government is satisfied that it is for a public purpose that 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, giving a brief description in the notification itself. The Section further provides that this notification shall be published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in the vernacular language. Once the said notification is issued, any person interested in the land obtains the statutory right to make his objections within 21 days of its publication, as regards use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that Section. This is specifically stipulated so in Section 3-C of the NH Act. 23. The words “object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that Sub- Section” appearing in Section 3-C of the NH Act, singularly refers to Section 3-A of it and has great relevance to the controversy projected in this case. 24. As I have said above, the specific argument of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, is that every objection to be made by a person interested in the land will have to be considered by the CALA and this includes even the technical feasibility of the alignment and its alteration -if it becomes so necessary. 24. As I have said above, the specific argument of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, is that every objection to be made by a person interested in the land will have to be considered by the CALA and this includes even the technical feasibility of the alignment and its alteration -if it becomes so necessary. However, going by the prescriptions of Section 3-C, it is irrefragable that CALA can only consider objections with respect to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3-A of the NH Act. 25. Returning to Section 3-A of the NH Act, it is perspicuous that the purposes mentioned therein are with respect to the construction of a building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof and nothing else. It is thus apodictic that any objection to be preferred under Section 3-C of the NH Act must fall within the delineated parameters of Section 3-A thereof and anything beyond that cannot be considered by the CALA. 26. To paraphrase, if an objection is raised before the CALA as regards the alignment per se, it will not be possible for him to consider it, because his competence is confined to decide whether the land sought to be acquired is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof. It is only if an objector is able to convince them that the land belonging to him/her, or over which he/she makes a claim, is not required for any such purpose, can the CALA accept it and then report accordingly to the Government of India, which may or may not, then, consequentially cause a change in the alignment. 27. It is thus evident that even when the CALA makes a report to the Government as per their duty under Section 3-D of the NH Act, they does not and cannot recommend a change of the alignment, but only that certain lands or extents be excluded, they being not required for the purposes under Section 3-A of the NH Act. 28. Viewed from that perspective, it becomes irrefutable that the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, cannot appeal to this Court, since, by no sweep or stretch can the CALA inter-meddle with the process of alignment of a National Highway or its finalization. 29. 28. Viewed from that perspective, it becomes irrefutable that the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, cannot appeal to this Court, since, by no sweep or stretch can the CALA inter-meddle with the process of alignment of a National Highway or its finalization. 29. This is also for the reason – as is well known and accepted – that a Road/Highway alignment design process is guided by comprehensive technical literature and data search; as also by various carefully identified priorities, including environmental and social dimensions, leading to multifarious decisions at multiple levels. This is a complex and intensively iterative process and the degrees of complexity increase depending upon the topographical and geological attributes. To say differently, this is a matter for the experts and not for the CALA, who is generally and often only a Revenue Official and not one with technical training or expertise in such matters. 30. When I so conclude and then examine the impugned orders of the CALA, I cannot find the conclusions therein to be in error because it was irreproachably held therein that they are only enjoined to consider whether the lands of the petitioners are required for the purposes mentioned in Section 3-A of the NH Act, but cannot, in any manner, decide upon the alignment, as has been requested by them. 31. In any event of the matter, once the final notification has been issued by the Government under Section 3-D of the NH Act, the CALA loses even the competence to make reports before the said Government. 32. In summation, the contentions of the petitioners urged in this writ petition cannot obtain the imprimatur of this Court; and I, consequently, dismiss them. This writ petition is thus ordered.