JUDGMENT : PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. These two writ appeals would arise out of the common order dated 09.04.2021 passed in W.P. Nos. 37218 of 2017 and 47461 of 2018, wherein the respective writ petitioners have assailed the land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the National Highways Authority of India for the purpose of widening and developing NH-16 in Pendurthi Mandal including Saripalle village in Prakasam District. 2. In W.A. No. 280 of 2021 filed against W.P. No. 47461 of 2018, writ petitioners’ land admeasuring 61,700 square meters in Sy. Nos. 116, 120, 121, 122, 270, 276 and 278 of Saripalle village, is the subject matter of acquisition, whereas in W.A. No. 302 of 2021, filed against W.P. No. 37218 of 2017, writ petitioners’ land to the extent of 1778 square meters in Sy. No. 117/3 and 7202 square meters in Sy. No. 118/2 of Saripalle village is said to be acquired. The acquisition in respect of these lands had been challenged in the writ petitions. 3. The writ petitioners challenged the notifications issued under Section 3-A and 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act”) on the ground that notification dated 28.07.2017 did not state that “the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority” therefore, the requirement of Section 3-A has not been followed. They were also challenged on the ground that the notification under Section 3-D published on 27.09.2017 does not mention the notification dated 28.07.2017, therefore, the mandatory requirement of mentioning of all the notifications had not been followed. 4. Referring to the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory, (2005) 13 SCC 477 and Radha Krishna and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1973 SC 1150 , it was argued that, in the absence of brief description of the property having been provided in the notification, therefore, being in violation of Section 3-A, the acquisition must fail and, consequently, there is no public purpose for the subject acquisition. It was also argued that before proceeding to issue the notification for acquisition, a survey is necessary to delineate the land and the same having not been done, the entire process is void ab initio. It was also argued that before proceeding to issue the notification for acquisition, a survey is necessary to delineate the land and the same having not been done, the entire process is void ab initio. It was also argued that acquisition is for widening of road, however, the part where the writ petitioners’ land would fall is so wide that it covers the land much more than what is required for widening of road. On this basis, it is put forth that the acquisition is unnecessary and, as such, there is no public purpose. 5. The respondent-NHAI defended the writ petitions on submission that the subject land was being acquired for the purpose of creating a trumpet access to the National Highway, which is very much clear from the plan produced by the NHAI along with its pleadings. It has been argued that description of the land given in column 5 of the notification dated 19.10.2016 is sufficient description to meet the requirement of brief description and, further, the description by giving survey number and sub-division in the survey number, would clearly inform the affected persons that their land is affected. According to Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for NHAI, three notifications issued under Section 3-A of the Act, should be treated as one primary notification on 19.10.2016 to which two amendments dated 13.06.2017 and 28.07.2017 have been carried out. Subsequent amendment notifications cannot be treated as superseding the earlier notification, but the same are only supplementary notifications. It was further put forth that 38 objections were received against the notification and were considered. The writ petitioners have submitted their objection after the last date of submission, i.e. 25.11.2016 and, as such, the same could not have been considered, as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and Others, AIR 2011 SC 3210 . Reliance was also placed on the judgments rendered in Ramniklal N. Butta and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 134 and Barangore Jute Factory (supra). 6. Reliance was also placed on the judgments rendered in Ramniklal N. Butta and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 134 and Barangore Jute Factory (supra). 6. According to the learned single Judge, the first notification 19.10.2016 stated that the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available for inspection, for the reason that the extent of land that is being acquired in each sub-survey number having been mentioned and the plans being made available for verification in the office of the competent authority, there is sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 3-A. In respect of non-consideration of objection, it was observed that as the writ petitioners have submitted the objection after the last date of submission, i.e. 25.11.2016, the competent authority has not committed any illegality in not consider the same. By referring to Radha Krishna (supra), it is held that description of the public purpose set out in the notification was sufficient and, as such, there exists public purpose for the subject acquisition. 7. The notification dated 19.10.2016 clearly provides that “the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority.” In the second notification under Section 3-A published on 13.06.2017 also, this recital is made and, moreover, as argued by Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for NHAI, writ petitioners’ lands are not included in this notification. In respect of the third notification under Section 3-A published on 28.07.2017, it is argued that no additional lands were notified, but it was only amendment to earlier Section 3-A notifications. 8. To appreciate the submissions made by Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for NHAI, we have perused the third notification, which clearly mentions in the opening paragraph that “the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways number S.O. No. 3239 (E) dated 19th October, 2016 published in the Gazette of India extraordinary Part-II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii). Thus, this notification is neither fresh notification nor does it supersede the earlier notification. Thus, this notification is neither fresh notification nor does it supersede the earlier notification. This being the position, non-mentioning of the words “the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority” is not fatal for the respondents, nor does it make the notification illegal or invalid. 9. In the course of hearing, learned senior counsel brought to our notice that the entire stretch of NH-16 covers a stretch of 50.78 kms. Except for the writ petitioners’ land falling at a length of 1.3 km, the entire construction is complete and the writ petitioners’ land is land-locked. He would submit that the land of the writ petitioners had already been utilized for the purpose of creating a trumpet structure and there is no access to the land of the writ petitioners, therefore, no interference can be made at this stage, nor does the order passed by the learned single Judge suffer from any infirmity. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and, particularly, for the reason that the entire length of the National Highway has already been constructed, the learned single Judge has rightly observed, taking support of the law laid down in Barangore Jute Factory (supra), that the appropriate course of action would be to allow the acquisition process to be completed by taking the date of possession as the date on which the market value of the land is to be calculated for the purpose of compensation. 11. Merely because the notification dated 28.07.2017 failed to mention that “the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority” the entire process would not be vitiated for the simple reason that this notification was an amendment to the earlier notifications in which the said recital was made. In the matter of Kushala Shetty and Others (supra), the following has been held at paragraphs 19 and 20: “In this case, the Notification dated 10-08-2005, which was published in the Official Gazette of the same date and of which substance was published in two local newspapers, contained full description of the land proposed to be acquired for widening three national highways. The names of the villages in which the land proposed to be acquired was situated, the survey numbers including sub-survey numbers, the nature, type and area of the land were also given in the schedule appended to the notification. Not only this, it was clearly mentioned that land plans and other details of the land are available in the office of the competent authority. This is the reason why none of the landowners (including the respondents) made any grievance that the notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the 1956 Act was vague or that due to lack of particulars/details, they were prevented from effectively exercising their right to file objections in terms of Section 3-C(1). Of course, a grievance on this score was made in the objections dated 16-10-2006 filed by some of the landowners of Padavu Village, but that was clearly an afterthought and, in any case, the same did not require consideration because of non-adherence to the time schedule specified in Section 3-C(1) of the 1956 Act.” “The only reason assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court for upsetting the well-considered order passed by the learned Single Judge negating the respondents' challenge to the acquisition was that declaration under Section 3-D(1) was published even before communication of the decision taken by the competent authority in terms of Section 3-C(2). The process of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench for recording its conclusion appears to have been influenced by an assumption that the objections filed by the landowners had not been decided till the issue of declaration under Section 3-D(1). However, the fact of the matter is that the competent authority had, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the objectors, passed the order dated 11-10-2005 and rejected the objections.” 12. The subject notification having mentioned that “the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority” there is sufficient compliance of the requirement under Section 3-A of the Act and the acquisition having already been completed, the learned single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing both the writ petitions. 13. Accordingly, both the writ appeals deserve to be, and are, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.