ORDER : 1. Seeking to declare the action of respondent No. 2 in changing the alignment by issuing Gazette Notification dated 28.01.2021 in S.O. No. 416(E) issued under National Highways Act, 1956 (in short ‘NH Act’) published in ‘Namaste Telangana’ newspaper on 03.02.2021 for acquisition of land for the purpose of NH-563 from Kms. No. 26.32 to Kms 83.3 (Karimnagar) in the District of Karimnagar, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to adopt the 1st alignment in Notification in S.O. No. 309(E) dated 19.01.2018 for acquisition of land for the purpose of NH-563 in Karimnagar District, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos. 1 and 4, Sri. Alishetty Laxminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the official respondents with a mala-fide intention have changed the alienation twice under the influence of some vested persons who are having political influence. Learned counsel has stated that initially a notification was issued on 19.01.2018 and as no award was passed, the same has lapsed. In the notification dated 19.01.2018, the road was passing through government lands and only few private lands were getting affected due to laying of the road. But, after the lapsing of the notification, dated 19.01.2018, the officials have issued another notification dated 05.06.2020 by changing the alignment of the road, from the earlier notified one on 19.01.2018. He has further stated that the second notification was published in ‘Mana Telangana’ news paper, which does not have any circulation and therefore the petitioners did not have any knowledge about the issuance of the notification, dated 05.06.2020. Even the notification dated 05.06.2020 has also lapsed as no award was passed within the time stipulated under the NH Act. Thereafter, the impugned notification is issued on 28.01.2021 wherein the alignment of the road was yet again changed and the said notification was published in ‘Namaste Telangana’ newspaper. Learned counsel has also stated that acquisition sought under second and third (impugned) notifications will be Acs. 27-04 guntas more than the acquisition sought in the first notification, dated 19.01.2018. As per the alignment in the first notification, Munjampally, Annaram, Manakonduru, Bomakal and Durshed Villages will be affected to the extent of Acs. Learned counsel has also stated that acquisition sought under second and third (impugned) notifications will be Acs. 27-04 guntas more than the acquisition sought in the first notification, dated 19.01.2018. As per the alignment in the first notification, Munjampally, Annaram, Manakonduru, Bomakal and Durshed Villages will be affected to the extent of Acs. 161-00 guntas, which include government lands to an extent of Acs. 12-00 in Manakonduru Village, Acs. 0-28 guntas in Bomkal Village and Ac. 1-33 guntas in Durshed Village. But, as per the new alignment, Munjampally, Annaram, Manakonduru, Bomakal and Durshed Villages will be affected to the extent of Acs. 187-00 guntas and the distance would be increased to 3.5 kms. Learned counsel has further stated that the alignment of the road was changed at the behest of some vested interested persons whose lands were getting affected in the earlier notifications and therefore the impugned notification is issued to help them. Learned counsel has further stated that the distance under the present notification has increased by 1.8 kms and an area of Acs. 27.00 more has to be acquired. That the petitioners, who were the marginal farmers and oustees under an earlier project, were allotted the present lands and even these lands are also sought to be acquired under the present notification. Even though the petitioners have given several representations to the authorities concerned to stick to the original alignment of road, but they have not bothered to consider the same. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for NHAI has stated that the authorities concerned duly taking into consideration the various factors and also the report of the Experts have changed the alignment of the road. That as per the earlier notifications, the road was passing through middle of the Village and number of structures were likely to be effected, which could had resulted in increasing the cost of acquisition and as such the official respondents had to take the necessary call for choosing the present option i.e. Option-II. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that in view of the protest raised by the Villagers of Kothapally (V) and as per the representations of the Member of Parliament and District Collector, Karimnagar, and keeping in view the possible growth of Karimnagar Town, a Review Meeting was held by Member (Project), NHAI, on 14.04.2018. After detailed discussions, the Option-II was approved. After detailed discussions, the Option-II was approved. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the action of the respondent authorities in choosing Option-II rather Option-III on the ground that Option-II is far away from the city limits and thereby rehabilitation/relocation issues can be avoided, that the total cost for civil construction and land acquisition including structures acquisition is less in Option-II. That the Option-II is a green field project whereas the other two Options were passing through villages and effecting structures, thereby increasing the cost of the acquisition. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the action of the respondent authorities in choosing Option-II rather than Option-I or Option-III can not be faulted with and there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Learned Standing Counsel has relied on the following judgments in support of his case: (1) Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69 (2) Ramniklal N. Bhutta vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Minutes of the meeting held on 14.04.2018, the letter of DPR dated 16.08.2017 and also the map showing the three different options of alignment of the road. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the official respondents have published Notification dated 28.01.2021 under Section 3A of the NH and the same was published in ‘Mana Telangana’ news paper on 03.02.2021. Thereafter, the objections were received under Section 3C and the notification under Section 3D was published on 08.04.2021. After the disposal of the objections under Section 3C, another notification under Section 3D dated 08.04.2021 was issued. Thereafter, the notification under Section 3G was issued on 28.02.2021 in ‘HANS INDIA’ and ‘Mana Telangana’ news papers. Further the Award Enquiry was completed on 05.03.2021. However, due to the interim orders passed by this Court on 29.04.2021, the Award could not be passed. As seen from the record, the Option-II is more advantageous and beneficial and therefore the decision of the authorities in going for Option-II cannot be faulted. Further the Award Enquiry was completed on 05.03.2021. However, due to the interim orders passed by this Court on 29.04.2021, the Award could not be passed. As seen from the record, the Option-II is more advantageous and beneficial and therefore the decision of the authorities in going for Option-II cannot be faulted. Even though the petitioners have made allegations that only to help some third parties and under the political influence, the alignment is changed no evidence or details of the persons who will be benefited by the changes have been stated in the affidavit or any document has been filed to support the said allegation. Therefore, the said argument has to be rejected. As the official respondents have followed the procedure prescribed under the NH Act, it has to be necessarily concluded that the acquisition is in strict compliance with the provisions of the law. 8. In Kushala Shetty (referred supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that 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 of 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. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala-fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” 9. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” 9. In Ramniklal case (referred supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with china economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as “Asian tigers” e.g. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump-sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.” 10. That apart, it is well settled principle of law that the Courts cannot substitute its own opinion for that of an Expert. In the case on hand, the authorities, based on the report of the Experts, have chosen Option-II rather than Option-I and III. The petitioners have not produced any contra evidence in support of their contentions. 11. In Bhagwan Das vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 589 it has been held that it would be a dangerous doctrine to lay down that the report of an expert witness could be brushed aside by making reference to some text on that subject without such text being put to the expert. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of A.P. (2006) 4 SCC 162 has held as under: “The appellant sought to challenge the veracity and correctness of the figures given in the report of the Central Government as well as in the quinquennial census. In our view, this submission is devoid of merit. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of A.P. (2006) 4 SCC 162 has held as under: “The appellant sought to challenge the veracity and correctness of the figures given in the report of the Central Government as well as in the quinquennial census. In our view, this submission is devoid of merit. It is now well settled by various decisions of this Court that the findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts in exercise of their power under Article 226 of the Constitution or by this Court under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. For this proposition, reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in Systopic Laboratories (P) Ltd. vs. Dr. Prem Gupta, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 160. Paras 19 and 20 of this decision clearly give the answer on the question whether the findings of the expert body in technical and scientific matters can be interfered with by the Court either under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 32 or 136 of the Constitution.” Hence, in view of the said pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot ignore or substitute the opinion given by the experts based upon relevant materials placed before them.” 13. For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of merits. However, as it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not even aware of the Award Enquiry pending before the authorities concerned, therefore they may be given a chance to file their claim petitions before the authority along with relevant documents. Therefore, the Court permits the petitioners to file their respective claim petitions along with relevant documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order before the concerned and on receipt of the same, the authority concerned shall consider the same and pass the Award duly taking into account the documents filed, if any. 14. Subject to above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 15. Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. 14. Subject to above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 15. Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.