ORDER 1. This batch of three writ petitions has been filed by land owners alleging non compliance of the provisions of section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") in the matter of acquisition of land for construction of road. 2. On notice, respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter affidavit, which has been adopted by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. It appears that respondent No.2 issued a gazette notification dated 11.10.2018, proposing acquisition of land for construction of National Highway between Porsa and Ater (Porsa-Ater-Bhind Road) falling in National Highway No.552. For the purpose of acquisition of land, proceedings under section 3A of the Act of 1956 were started. The objections were to be filed within 21 days of the date of publication of notification. Since the notification was published in newspaper on 1/3/2019, the petitioners after acquiring knowledge of the same, filed objection dated 8.3.2019, which was received on 12/3/2019. The objection (Annexure P/5), in fact, is suggestive in nature; relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced thus: ^^;g fd] iwoZ ls fHk.M vVsj iksjlk jksM fufeZr gS mlds nksuksa vksj dkQh txg gksdj mldk pkSMhdj.k djds gkbos dk fuekZ.k fd;k tkus ij 'kklu dks ,oa dk'rdkjku dks lqfo/kk gksxh 'kklu dks eqvkotk ls jkgr feysxh rFkk dk'rdkjksa dh Hkwfe muds thfodksiktZu ds fy, cuh jgsxh tks fd 'kklu fgr esa gSA** 4. The objections so received, were sent for technical opinion/report to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 12.3.2019 (Annexure R/1). The report was submitted on 12.4.2019 (Annexure R/2), based whereupon the order (Annexure R/3) of rejection of objections was passed on 22.4.2019. The objections so received, were sent for technical opinion/report to the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 12.3.2019 (Annexure R/1). The report was submitted on 12.4.2019 (Annexure R/2), based whereupon the order (Annexure R/3) of rejection of objections was passed on 22.4.2019. The same reads infra: dk;kZy; vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ ,oa l{ke Ákf/kdkjh vVsj ftyk vVsj fHk.M ¼e/; Áns'k½ Øekad 320@D;w@jh@vŒfoŒvŒ@2020@320 vVsj fnukad 22-4-2019 vkns'k iksjlk&vVsj&fHk.M ekxZ jk"Vªh; jktekxZ Øekad 552 ¼foLrkfjr½ fuekZ.k gsrq Hkw&vfèkxzg.k dk dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gSA ftlesa /kkjk 3&, dk xtV uksfVfQds'ku fnukad 11-10-2018 dks fd;k x;k] rn~ijkar bldk lekpkj i=¨a ¼1 nSfud HkkLdj fnukad 1-3-2019 ,oa vkpj.k fnukad 2-3-2019½ esa Ádk'ku fd;k x;k FkkA blesa xzke çrkiiqjk ds Hkw&Lokfeksa }kjk vkthfodk dk nwljk lk/ku u gksus crkdj vkifRr;ka ntZ dh xbZ FkhA /kkjk 3&lh ds vUrxZr vkifRr;ksa ds fujkdj.k gsrq dk;Zikyu ;a=h jk"Vªh; jktekxZ laHkkx Xokfy;j ds i= Øekad 162@rd@2019 Xokfy;j fnukad 12-4-2019 ds rduhdh ¼fo?keku ekxZ esa Árkiiqjk ds vUrxZr 5 eksM gSa 5 esa ls 3 eksM va/ks gSa Árkiiqjk ikoj gkml ij Cysd LikWV fpfUgr fd;k x;k gS½ vfHker ÁkIr gksus ls lHkh vkifRr;ka [kkfjt dh tkrh gSa lgh@& vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ l{ke Ákf/kdkjh vVsj ftyk&fHk.M i`"B Øekad&320 vVsj fnukad 22-4-2019 Áfrfyfi%& 1- dysDVj egksn; ftyk fHk.M dh vksj lwpukFkZA 2- rglhynkj rglhy vVsj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa ys[k gS fd uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik djsaA 3- dk;Zikyu ;a=h yksŒfuŒfoŒ jk"Vªh; jktekxZ laHkkx Xokfy;j dh vksj lwpukFkZA 4- jhMj vuqŒfoŒ vf/kdkjh jktLo vkWfQl uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik djsaA lgh@& vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ l{ke Ákf/kdkjh vVsj ftyk&fHk.M The communication (Annexure R/4) in that behalf was made by Sub Divisional Officer to the Executive Engineer, PWD National Highway, Division Gwalior for further proceedings. 5. The Award has been passed on 11.2.2020 (Annexure R/6) after declaration under section 3D of the act of 1956. The total area of land acquired is 4.29 hectares and Award to the tune of Rs.95,77,849/- has been passed for payment to 128 land owners, out of which about 126 persons have received the compensation and handed over possession of the land including petitioner Rishikesh in W.P.No.6111/2020. Only two persons namely Raghuraj (petitioner in W.P. No.6108/2020) and Umrav (petitioner in W.P.No.10902/2020) have not taken the compensation. This Court on 13.3.2020 in W.P. No.6108/2020 has ordered for maintaining status quo in regard to possession of land in question. Only two persons namely Raghuraj (petitioner in W.P. No.6108/2020) and Umrav (petitioner in W.P.No.10902/2020) have not taken the compensation. This Court on 13.3.2020 in W.P. No.6108/2020 has ordered for maintaining status quo in regard to possession of land in question. As a result, the entire work of construction of Porsa-Ater National Highway has come to a standstill. 6. The sheet anchor of arguments of Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner revolves around S.3C(2) of the Act of 1956. He inter alia contends that petitioners have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard and, as such, the acquisition proceedings are polluted for non compliance thereof. 7. Shri Khedkar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the objection, so raised (quoted above), was duly considered by the technical team consisting of qualified Engineers and after receipt of report, decision was taken to proceed with the acquisition. There is no other objection which may warrant resolution of issue on facts. The aforesaid contention is reinforced by the fact that about 126 persons have accepted the compensation except aforesaid two persons. He further submits that construction of National Highway is in public interest and, therefore, at the instance of petitioners, the whole project cannot be stalled, jeopardizing public interest. It is submitted that there is no challenge to the Award. Mere technical objection, so raised, is of no consequence and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, paving way for construction of Porsa-Ater National Highway. 8. Heard. 9. This Court has carefully perused the averments made in the writ petitions, annexures attached thereto and counter-affidavit with annexures attached. 10. The objection raised by the petitioners, in fact, was 5 W.P. Nos. 6108/2020, 6111/2020 and 10902/2020 suggestive in nature and, in no way, raises such factual disputes which require resolution. There is no dispute about the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, justifying acquisition of land. 10. The objection raised by the petitioners, in fact, was 5 W.P. Nos. 6108/2020, 6111/2020 and 10902/2020 suggestive in nature and, in no way, raises such factual disputes which require resolution. There is no dispute about the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, justifying acquisition of land. For ready reference, the report (Annexure R/2) of the Executive Engineer is quoted below: dk;kZy;] dk;Zikyu ;a=h yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx jk"Vªh; jktekxZ laHkkx Xokfy;j ¼e/; Áns'k½ Qksu&0751&2495526] 2452446 Øekad 162@rkŒ@2019 Xokfy;j fnukad 12-04-2019 Áfr] vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ ,oa l{ke Ákf/kdkjh Hkw&vtZu rglhynkj&vVsj ftyk fHk.M ¼eŒÁŒ½ fo"k;% iksjlk ls vVsj&fHk.M ekxZ jk"Vªh; jktekxZ Øekad&552 ¼foLrkfjr½ d¢ rglhy vVsj xzke&çrkiiqjk dh ÁkIr vkifRr;ksa ds fujkdj.k gsrq vfHker Hkstus ckcr~A lanHkZ% vkidk dk;Z i= Øekad 289@D;w@jh@vŒfoŒvŒ@2020@209 vVsj fnukad 12-03-2019 mijksDr fo"k; ,oa lanHkZ esa ys[k gS fd Árkiiqjk&ckikl dk fuekZ.k tks fd ¼iksjlk&vVsj&fHk.M ekxZ½ jk"Vªh; jktekxZ Øekad&552 ¼foLrkfjr½ dk Hkkx gSA mDr ekxZ xzke&Árkiiqjk ds ikoj gkml ds ikl ,oa ml cLrh ds vanj fo?keku Hkkx esa 05 eksM gSa mDr ekxZ ?kuh vkcknh ls xqtjrk gSA jk"Vªh; jktekxZ d¢ ekud vuqlkj mu eksMksa dk lq/kkj dk;Z cLrh ds vUnj ls fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA vr% Árkiiqjk ikoj gkml eksM ij jkT; 'kklu }kjk Cysd LikWV fpfUgr fd;k x;k gS ftl ij dbZ ,DlhMsaV gq, gSaA rduhdh n`f"V ls Árkiiqjk ck;ikl dk fuekZ.k fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA ÁkIr f'kdk;rksa ds fujkdj.k gsrq pkgk x;k vfHker Vhi lfgr lwph vuqlkj layXu gSA lgi=&mijksDrkuqlkj lgh@& dk;Zikyu ;a=h yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ¼jk"Vªh; jktekxZ½ laHkkx&Xokfyj ¼e/; Áns'k½ Which suggests that in the existing road of Village Pratappura there are five curves, including three blind curves and the same passes through densely populated area. The road cannot go with curve improvements as per the standard of National Highway. A black spot has been marked at Pratappura Power House Turn which is also an accident prone area. In such circumstances, the construction of Pratappura Bypass is viable from technical point of view. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the Authorities have applied their mind and dealt with the objection in right earnest and wider public interest. As such, it is difficult to countenance the contention of the petitioners that there was non compliance of S.3C of the Act of 1956. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the Authorities have applied their mind and dealt with the objection in right earnest and wider public interest. As such, it is difficult to countenance the contention of the petitioners that there was non compliance of S.3C of the Act of 1956. It is not out of place to observe that the requirement of adherence to principles of natural justice including opportunity of hearing depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and is not regulated by thumb rule; independent of facts. The objection raised in these writ petitions with regard to non adherence to S.3C of the Act of 1956, in our opinion, is a mere technical objection and not based on such facts which otherwise could have a substantial bearing in the matter of acquisition of land for construction of National Highway. 12. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be retained in each of the connected petitions.