JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the notification, dtd. 10/11/2017 published in the Gazette of India, for the purpose of formation of NH-165 from pamarru to Diga Marru Road i.e. 61/740 to 107/660 under Sec. 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the NH Act') and also the Gazette of India notification dtd. 6/11/2018 issued under Sec. 3D of the NH Act as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The averments, in brief, are that notification, dtd. 10/11/2017 issued under Sec. 3-A of the NH Act was published in Gazette of India, proposing to acquire land for formation of NA-165 from Pamarru to Digamarru Road i.e., 61/740 to 107/600 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The lands of some of the petitioners as well as the lands of M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Anjaneya Ice Factory and M/s UPVC doors, where petitioner Nos.6 to 15 and 16 to 23 are working, were also notified. Petitioners submitted their objections on 29/11/2017 and, also made representations dtd. 30/12/2017 to the Minister of Road Transport and Highways (for short 'MoRTH') to adopt either the master plan or by-pass road for the purpose of National Highway to the extent of Bhimavaram. However, the authorities, without considering the objections and representations, issued gazette notification dtd. 6/11/2018 under Sec. 3D of the NH Act. Aggrieved by the said action, the above writ petition is filed. 3. This Court granted interim order on 27/11/2018 observing that the letter of the Chief Engineer, if taken forward, the present acquisition, is not required and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners. 4. a) Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.6. It was contended, inter alia, about issuance of notice under Sec. 3(A) of the NH Act proposing to acquire lands in Bhimavaram, Akivudu, Undi and Kalla Mandals, for formation of NH 165 in the stretch of land from km.61/740 to 107/660 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the notification it was mentioned that objections, if any, have to be submitted within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. After completion of statutory period, public hearing was conducted on 21/12/2017 by the competent authority. In the notification it was mentioned that objections, if any, have to be submitted within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. After completion of statutory period, public hearing was conducted on 21/12/2017 by the competent authority. The issues raised at the time of the public hearing were referred to the Regional Officer, MoRTH, Vijayawada. After receiving remarks from Executive Engineer (R and B), NH Division, Visakhapatnam, the then competent authority for LA and Additional Joint Collector, NH-165, West Godavari, Eluru issued orders disposing of the objections. The master plan was proposed in the year, 1987 and no land acquisition was done so far. Land plan schedules were furnished to competent authority for formation of NH 165. Many existing houses and habitations are eliminated while proposing the alignment and the MoRTH, New Delhi approved the alignment. Therefore, it is not possible to change the alignment at this stage. The alignment is finalized and submitted for approval, for Bhimavaram Bypass covering Bhimavaram Town, Srungavruksham (V) and Veeravasaram (V). It was reviewed during joint site visit with A.K. Nagapal, Additional Director General, MoRTH, New Delhi on 26/5/2018 and agreed for the alignment option 10 C vide Lr.No.NH 165/61.000 to 107.600/CE(NH)/EE(NH)/DEE2/ AEE 2/2016, dtd. 27/6/2018 of the Engineer-in-Chief (R and B), NH and CRF, Vijayawada. b) The alignment of 10A i.e. mini bypass is surrounded by dense habitation and the approved alignment i.e. 10C is located away from dense habitation. The DPR consultant M/s. Infinite Civil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad proposed Bhimavaram - Veeravasaram Bypass alignment for the villages Vissakoderu, Goraganamudi, Pennada Agraharam, Srungavruksham and Veeravasaram in consultation with Department and adopting the standards and specification as per IRC SP: 73-2012 and approved the option 10C duly considering the observation of the expert team. Hence, the allegation that issuance of notification disregarding the decision of the expert, is not correct. c) MoRTH, New Delhi approved Sec. 3-A notification on 8/11/2017 in respect of Akiveedu, Undi, Kalla, Bhimavaram Mandals of West Godavari District. After issuance of notification dtd. 8/11/2017, objections were received under Sec. 3C of the NH Act. After completion of 21 days, notices were issued under Sec. 3-C of the NH Act, to the objectors. d) M/s L and T Ramboli consulting Engineers Ltd., Chennai, 2) M/s. Lion Engineering Consultants 3) M/s. Infinite Civil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmadabad conducted survey and submitted the alignment. 8/11/2017, objections were received under Sec. 3C of the NH Act. After completion of 21 days, notices were issued under Sec. 3-C of the NH Act, to the objectors. d) M/s L and T Ramboli consulting Engineers Ltd., Chennai, 2) M/s. Lion Engineering Consultants 3) M/s. Infinite Civil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmadabad conducted survey and submitted the alignment. The said alignment was approved by MoRTH, New Delhi and the authorities have followed the procedure under LA Act. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the same is not maintainable. 5. Counter affidavit was filed by Assistant Executive Engineer (R and B), on behalf of respondent No.8. It was contended, inter alia, about proposed formation of National Highways - 165 in the sketch of Km 61/740 to 107/600 and approval of notice under Sec. 3(A) of the NH Act in respect of Bhimavaram town. After completion of statutory period, public hearing was conducted on 21/12/2017 by the competent authority. The public was informed about the alignment prepared by M/s. Infinite Civil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmadabad. One of the objections raised by public is regarding existence of master plan road, which was proposed in the year, 1987. However, another road is proposed which is called NH 165 and M/s. L and T Ramboli Consulting Engineers Ltd., 2) M/s. Lion Engineering Consultants and 3) M/s. Infinite Civil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad conducted survey. b) Originally the MoRTH, New Delhi approved Bhimavaram bypass alignment which was proposed by M/s L and T Ramboli consulting Engineers Ltd., Chennai and subsequently modified by M/s. Lion Engineering Consultants, Bohpal and the same was approved by the Engineer in Chief (R and B), NH, Vijayawada vide Memo No.249/DCE-I(D) DEE-I/AEE/2012, dtd. 21/12/2013. MoRTH, New Delhi has approved Bhimavaram bypass alignment (option 10A + 10C), which was one of the options proposed by DPR consultant M/s. Infinite Civil Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmadabad. MoRTH, New Delhi is the competent authority to change the alignment, if any. c) As per the authorities, DPR consultant submitted a note that Municipal Master Plan is not upto the standards of MoRTH and there are high tension power lines which are coming in the new alignment and the Geometric, such as curves, etc. Hence, taking the same into consideration, the ministry has approved alignment of Bhimavaram bypass duly considering option 10C, on 3/10/2018 out of three options. Hence, taking the same into consideration, the ministry has approved alignment of Bhimavaram bypass duly considering option 10C, on 3/10/2018 out of three options. d) In view of the above facts, the recommended alignment 3(A) was approved and published in the gazette on 10/11/2017 and draft 3D submitted to the MoRTH, New Delhi, was approved and published in the gazette on 6/11/2018 for formation of NH 165 from Pamarru to Digamarru Road i.e. 61/740 to 107/660. Hence, changing alignment is not possible at this stage. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri A. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to notification, dtd. 10/11/2017, issued under Sec. 3(A) of the NH Act, petitioner submitted representations suggesting to adopt either master plan which is vacant for the last 25 years or the existing bypass road on southern side of master plan. However, without considering the same 3D notification was issued. He would submit that the impugned notification effects several factories, business and SC colony. He would submit that changing of alignment from time to time on the intervention of public representatives is arbitrary. He would also submit that 3D declaration was published on 6/11/2018 and interim order was granted by this Court on 27/11/2018. He would submit that order under Sec. 3C was not communicated to the petitioners. He would also submit that counter affidavit filed by Executive Engineer, R and B cannot be looked into in view of lack of competency. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, per contra, would contend that notification under Sec. 3A was issued as per the approval, in 2008, itself. He would also submit that a public hearing was conducted, and objections filed by the petitioners were considered. Sec. 3C orders were communicated to all the individuals. He would also submit that Executive Engineer, NH Department (R and B), Government of Andhra Pradesh was appointed/authorized by Regional Officer, National Highways Administration, vide notification 50374 (e), to depose the affidavit. Hence, the authority is competent to depose to the counter affidavit. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Sec. 3C orders were communicated to all the individuals. He would also submit that Executive Engineer, NH Department (R and B), Government of Andhra Pradesh was appointed/authorized by Regional Officer, National Highways Administration, vide notification 50374 (e), to depose the affidavit. Hence, the authority is competent to depose to the counter affidavit. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether the notification issued under Sec. 3(A) of the N.H.Act in respect of Bhimavaram bypass i.e., option 10C, is after the approval of MoRTH? If not, the notification to the extent of option 10C is liable to set aside? (2) Whether the objections of the petitioners were properly considered and the orders are communicated? If not, the notification in respect of petitioners' land is liable to be set aside? 10. It is an undisputed fact that notification under Sec. 3(A)1 of NH Act was Gazetted on 10/11/2017 for widening of road from KM 61/740 to 107/660. 11. Lands of the petitioners are situated in Bheemavaram Mandal. The lands of the petitioners are also notified under Sec. 3A(1) of the NH Act. 12. Pursuant to the notification petitioners submitted their objections within the time stipulated. In the objections it was contended that the maps/plans relating to the publication were not kept in the office of Joint Collector and alignment was changed. 13. While overruling the objections the competent authority in proceedings Roc No.12/AJC/NH-165/2018 dtd. 27/1/2018, observed that the regional office, MoRTH, Vijayawada, vide letter dtd. 5/1/2018, has informed that the present alignment was approved by the Ministry for the subject project vide letter No. RW/NH-12014/172016-AP(P-7) dtd. 13/2/2017. Thus, according to competent authority, the alignment (i.e. 10C) was approved on 13/2/2017. Accordingly, notification under Sec 3A(1) of the NH Act was issued. 14. Proceedings dtd. 13/2/2017 filed along with the writ petition would disclose that the total extent of project was divided into two packages. Package 1 is from Pamarru 0/0000 KM to Allapadu 61/100 KM. Package 2 starts from Allapadu (KM 61/100 to Digamarru (KM 107/660). 15. In package 2, five bypass roads were proposed. As per the approved plan, the authority approved Option 10A i.e. Design Chainage from 80-440 KM to 94-960 KM, Bhimavaram Bypass, length 16-98 KM, on 13/2/2017. However, as per the notification, dtd. 10/11/2017 issued under Sec. 3A(1) of the N.H.Act, lands situated in option 10C were notified. 15. In package 2, five bypass roads were proposed. As per the approved plan, the authority approved Option 10A i.e. Design Chainage from 80-440 KM to 94-960 KM, Bhimavaram Bypass, length 16-98 KM, on 13/2/2017. However, as per the notification, dtd. 10/11/2017 issued under Sec. 3A(1) of the N.H.Act, lands situated in option 10C were notified. Option 10C was approved by the MoRTH on 3/10/2018. 16. In respect of Bhimavaram Bypass initially three options were proposed as per Detailed Project Report (DPR) i.e. Option 10A, Option 10B and Option 10C. 17. The latter Lr.No.NH-165/61.000 to 107.600/CE(NH)EE (NH)/DEE2/AEE2/2016 dtd. 8/9/2018, addressed by Engineer-in Chief (R&B), National Highways and CRF, Vijayawada to the Additional Director General (Zone-III), New Delhi would manifest that Sec. 3(A) notifications are prepared and published in anticipation that approval of the alignment option 10C for Bhimavaram bypass will expire on 9/11/2018 and 2/1/2019 and hence, requested to accord approval for option 10-C for Bhimavaram Bypass. In the letter dtd. 8/9/2018, it was also mentioned that Ministry approved 10-A alignment option to Bhimavaram Bypass comprising length of 16-98 KM, on 13/2/2017. 18. After approval of option 10A, on receipt of many VIP references including Member of Parliament, Narsapuram and public representatives to modify approved alignment, the then Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), National Highways has inspected the site on 25/5/2017 and recommended the alignment option 10C which is in line with the originally approved alignment of Bhimavaram Bypass, in the year 2008. 19. Thus, the letter dtd. 8/9/2018 would manifest that from the year 2008, the alignment in respect of Bhimavaram Bypass was being changed at the intervention of the political representatives. Finally, the notification under Sec. 3A (1) was Gazetted on 10/11/2017 in respect of option 10C without the approval of MoRTH. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that Executive Engineer (Zone-III), for DG (RD) and SS addressed letter dtd. 3/10/2018 to the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Vijayawada. It is very apt to extract the said letter. "Sub:- Widening of two lane with paved shoulder/four lane from KM0/00 to 107/660 of Pamarru - Digamarru road of NH-165 in the State of Andhra Pradesh - Alignment approval - reg. Sir, Please refer to your letter No.165/61.00 to 107/600/CE (NH)EE(NH)/DEE2/AEE2/2016 dtd. 27/6/18 submitting therewith modified alignment plan for Bhimavaram bypass in above sketch of NH-165 and subsequently submission of clarification vide your letter dtd. 8/9/2018 for Ministry's approval. 2. Sir, Please refer to your letter No.165/61.00 to 107/600/CE (NH)EE(NH)/DEE2/AEE2/2016 dtd. 27/6/18 submitting therewith modified alignment plan for Bhimavaram bypass in above sketch of NH-165 and subsequently submission of clarification vide your letter dtd. 8/9/2018 for Ministry's approval. 2. The proposal has been examined in the Ministry and modification proposed in earlier approved alignment vide Ministry letter dtd. 13/2/17 are accepted by competent authority as per the following details : 1) Bhimavaram Bypass Option 10C as proposed by consultant and recommended by Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), NH and CRF, AP starting at KM 78.590 (Design ch 75/500) and merging at KM 95.450 ( Design ch. 92.950) having a length of 17-460 Kms in place of earlier approved option 10+10C 3. State PWD, however, is advised to exercise due diligence in submitting draft 3A/3D notification for land acquisition as per the approved alignment only to avoid legal complication." 21. Thus, the letter dtd. 3/10/2018 referred to supra would make the things more than discernable that even before the approval from the MoRTH, notification was issued on 10/11/2017 under Sec. 3A(1) of the NH Act in respect of lands as per option 10C, when the approval by MoRTH was to option 10A. 22. Though the learned Senior Counsel would contend that notification under Sec. 3A(1) was issued as per the Ministry approval dtd. 8/5/2008, this court has not persuaded with the said submission since the approval option 10C was later changed and Ministry approved for option 10A on 13/2/2017. Even, while overruling the objections, CALA cum JAC mentioned in the proceedings dtd. 12/3/2018 that the alignment was approved on 13/2/2017 and hence there is no change in the alignment. 23. Sec. 3A(1) of National Highways Act relevant is extracted herewith: Power to acquire land, etc.-(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose 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. (Emphasis is mine). 24. A perusal of the definition makes it clear that the Central Government 'on being satisfied' may issue notification in the official gazette declaring its intention to acquire the land. The provisions of an expropriatory legislation, which deprives a person of his right to property without his consent, must be strictly construed. (Emphasis is mine). 24. A perusal of the definition makes it clear that the Central Government 'on being satisfied' may issue notification in the official gazette declaring its intention to acquire the land. The provisions of an expropriatory legislation, which deprives a person of his right to property without his consent, must be strictly construed. In the case at hand, under the provisions of N.H.Act, the lands of petitioners were sought to be acquired by exercising power of eminent domain. Thus, the provisions of the N.H. Act, are to be construed strictly. 25. Affording of opportunity to persons whose lands are proposed for acquisition under NH Act, mandated by Sec. 3-C(1) is neither a ritual nor an empty formality. It is a salutary provision akin to the provisions of Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. 26. In State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493 . it was held that an uncommunicated administrative order is inoperative. The same principle is being reiterated time and again. Sec. 3-C(2) mandates the competent authority to provide objector with an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to either allow or disallow the objections by an order. Since hearing of objections to the process of acquisition is a valuable right, the objector is entitled to for communication of an order passed by the competent authority either rejecting or accepting the objections and the reasons recorded therefor. 27. In Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1217 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "The limited right given to an owner/person interested under Sec. 5-A of the Act to object to the acquisition proceedings is not an empty formality and is a substantive right, which can be taken away for good and valid reason and within the limitations prescribed under Sec. 17(4) of the Act. Therefore, if the appropriate Government decides to take away this minimal right then its decision to do so must be based on materials on record to support the same and bearing in mind the object of Sec. 5-A. 28. In the case on hand, as seen from proceedings in Roc No.653/2017/13 dtd. 21/1/2023, filed along with counter affidavit of respondent No.6, the order of rejection was not communicated to all the petitioners. Nothing is forthcoming from the record, as to when the order was dispatched. 29. In the case on hand, as seen from proceedings in Roc No.653/2017/13 dtd. 21/1/2023, filed along with counter affidavit of respondent No.6, the order of rejection was not communicated to all the petitioners. Nothing is forthcoming from the record, as to when the order was dispatched. 29. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners argued regarding malafide exercise of power and arbitrariness on the part of the authority in notifying the lands of the petitioners, this Court is not going to those aspects, since this Court is prima-facie satisfied that the notification issued under Sec. 3A(1) of the N.H. Act, in respect of option 10-C Bhimavaram bypass, is without approval from MoRTH. 30. The discussion made supra, makes it clear that notification under Sec. 3A(1) of the N.H. Act was Gazetted on 10/11/2017 and the approval in respect of option 10C was on 3/10/2018. In fact, in para 13 of the counter filed by the Executive Engineer (R&B), the authority also deposed that option 10C was approved on 3/10/2018. 31. This Court expresses its displeasure with regard to the change of options from time to time at the intervention of public representatives. Since 2008, whenever the authorities are proceeding with one option as per DPR preferred by the authorities, at intervention of public representatives, the options kept on changing. NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. 32. The projects involving construction of new Highways, widening and the development of existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to the 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 Nation 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 a 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 courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of a 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 the 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 malafides as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69 . 33. However, the case at hand, for the reasons best known, the NHAI kept on changing options at the intervention of the public representatives. Had the project started in the year 2008, by this time, it would have been completed. The authorities should not have deviated from DPR keeping in view, the cost escalation, from 2008 to 2023. 34. Though lands of petitioners in Akivudu Mandal, Undi Mandal and Kalla Mandal are involved, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the arguments confined prayer only to Bhimavaram Bypass ie. Option 10C. Hence, this court is not going into other aspects which were pleaded and argued. 35. In view of the discussion made supra, the notification under Sec. 3A(1) and Declaration under Sec. 3D of the Act, challenged in the writ petition are liable to be set aside,in respect of Option 10C, Bhimavaram bypass, since the notification was published even before the satisfaction, sine qua non, for publishing the notification. 36. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated supra. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.