ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 4th respondent in not considering the objections/ representations dated 20.04.2022 and 03.07.2022 of the petitioners in releasing the pending compensation for the infrastructure and underground drip irrigation system to them is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and contrary to Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act”) and for consequential direction to the 4th respondent to pay Rs.53,56,578/- with 100% solatium for the affected infrastructure and underground drip irrigation system in the process of laying Bangalore-Chennai Express way situated at Sy.Nos.153/10, 153/12, 153/13, 153/15, 153/16, 153/17, 1/1B, 1/2B, 2/1A1 and 2/1B of 190-Ramapuram village and 189- Kottapalli, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The relevant facts of the case, which are germane for consideration, may briefly be narrated as follows: 3. The National High Way Authority of India (for short “the NHAI”) has taken up the work of construction of four lane Bangalore-Chennai Expressway in three phases to facilitate high speed travel between Bangalore and Chennai. The alignment of the project passes through the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu. Phase III of the project consists of 105- 705 km., out of which 12 km., falls in Chittoor District and comes under the jurisdiction of Project Implementation Unit, Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu. For the purpose of the said project NHAI sent requisitions for acquisition of lands measuring approximately an extent of 2,63,390 sq.mtrs., in 189-Kothapalle village and 5,66,892 sq.mtrs., in 190-Ramapuram village of Gudipala Mandal of Chittoor District. The lands situated in Sy.Nos.153/10, 153/12, 153/13, 153/15, 153/16, 153/17, 153/19A in 190-Ramapuram village and the lands situated in Sy.Nos.1/1A, 1/1B, 1/2A, 1/2B, 2/1A and 2/1B in 183-Kothapalle village are part of the land acquisition pertaining to the Bangalore–Chennai Expressway in the stretch of land from Km.74/870 to 82/150 and 83/350 to Km.164/500 in Chittoor District. 4. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi, issued Notification under Section 3-A National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the NH Act”), vide S.O.No.1048(E) Dt.17.04.2015 declaring its intention to acquire the land situated in 189-Kothapalle and 190- Ramapuram villages, including the above referred lands. 4. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi, issued Notification under Section 3-A National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the NH Act”), vide S.O.No.1048(E) Dt.17.04.2015 declaring its intention to acquire the land situated in 189-Kothapalle and 190- Ramapuram villages, including the above referred lands. Initially the Notification was published in the local newspapers i.e., Andhra Jyothi (Telugu), dt.16.07.2015 and The Hindu (English), dated 16.07.2015, and an additional 3A Notification vide S.O.No.1251 (E) dated 21.04.2017 was published on 06.06.2017 in Prajasakthi (Telugu) and Hans India (English) Newspapers and the land owners/interested persons were granted 21 days time from the date of publication of the said Notifications to file their objections in writing to the 4th respondent. After passing orders on the objections received under Section 3C of the N.H.Act, a Notification vide S.O.1399(E) dated 12.04.2016, under Section 3D of the NH Act was issued covering the above mentioned lands situated in both the villages. Additional 3D Notification was published vide S.O.No.317(E), dated 19.01.2018 for the additional lands. Thereafter, Section 3G Notification under the NH Act was published in the newspapers i.e., Andhra Prabha (Telugu) and Hans India (English) dated 18.05.2016 and after completion of the enquiry, the 4th respondent through proceedings dated 15.03.2018 determined the compensation payable in respect of the lands mentioned above. While the authorities were proceeding in the matter to execute the works in respect of Expressway project, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel representing the counsel for the NHAI and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the 5th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased different extents of lands in the above referred Survey numbers through registered sale deeds and planted trees like mango, coconut, tamarind, teak, neem, lemon etc. He submits that the petitioners fenced the entire property with barbed wire and for development of the plantations, laid pipeline/drip irrigation system by availing huge loans from Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Chittoor. He submits that the respondent authorities without taking the relevant aspects into consideration submitted a report and on the basis of the same, the 4th respondent passed orders dated 07.05.2018 etc., awarding compensation without taking the structural values, bore well, open well and ground drip irrigation values. He submits that the respondent authorities without taking the relevant aspects into consideration submitted a report and on the basis of the same, the 4th respondent passed orders dated 07.05.2018 etc., awarding compensation without taking the structural values, bore well, open well and ground drip irrigation values. He submits that the compensation amount awarded was received under protest and the petitioners made representations dated 20.04.2022 and 03.07.2022 to the 4th respondent, who in turn invited the officials of the Rural Water Supply to evaluate the existing pipelines and barbed wire fencing in the subject matter lands. He submits that as no further action is initiated by the 4th respondent, the petitioners are constrained to file the present Writ Petition. 7. Referring to the 9th para of the affidavit, learned counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,56,578/- towards fencing, drip irrigation water pipeline and borewell charges. Further, that the petitioners are also entitled to Rs.23 lakhs towards compensation for infrastructure and underground drip irrigation system i.e., in all Rs.53,56,578/-. He submits that unless the respondents pay the said amount of compensation to the petitioners, they cannot proceed with the works in respect of the project in question. He also submits that by virtue of acquisition of the petitioners’ lands, the same have virtually been reduced to three pieces and the petitioners are deprived of their valuable property. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks the reliefs as prayed for. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI made submissions to the effect that in view of the representations dated 20.04.2022 and 03.07.2022 made by the petitioners, the 4th respondent requested the concerned departments to revisit the subject matter lands for correct enumeration of trees and other assets and requested them to evaluate the same. He submits that after receipt of the reports, the 4th respondent passed supplementary awards, vide proceedings dated 21.11.2022, and supplementary structural awards dated 04.04.2023 and 10.05.2023 covering the properties in Kothapplle village and Ramapuram village respectively. In view of the same, learned counsel submits that the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. He submits that after receipt of the reports, the 4th respondent passed supplementary awards, vide proceedings dated 21.11.2022, and supplementary structural awards dated 04.04.2023 and 10.05.2023 covering the properties in Kothapplle village and Ramapuram village respectively. In view of the same, learned counsel submits that the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. Be that as it may, drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant averments in the counter affidavit and also to the material filed along with the same, he submits that the 4th respondent by taking into consideration of the relevant factors had arrived at additional compensation of Rs.27,09,094/-. 9. In elaboration, he further submits that as is evident from the communications dated 03.02.2023 of the District Horticulture Officer addressed to the 4th respondent, the components of Drip material are removable and reusable. Despite the said position, the authorities had assessed the amount towards installation of drip system, and the contentions contra in this regard, are not tenable. Learned counsel also submits that in fact the writ petitioners had already received Rs.1,05,73,745/- towards compensation for both the land and assets i.e., trees etc., and in the event the petitioners are not satisfied with the supplementary awards in respect of the drip irrigation, barbed wire fencing etc., they can as well invoke the provisions of NH Act and approach the statutory arbitrator i.e., the District Collector-5th respondent herein. He also contends that in view of the interim orders granted by this Court, the project works of great national importance came to be a standstill and resulting the cost escalation. Contending that by virtue of Section 3D (2) of the NH Act on publication of declaration under Section 3D(1) of the NH Act, the subject matter lands vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and therefore the submission on behalf of the petitioners that without payment of compensation no work can be proceeded with is not sustainable. Hence, he urges for vacating the interim order dated 03.08.2022 and dismiss the writ petition. Hence, he urges for vacating the interim order dated 03.08.2022 and dismiss the writ petition. He also relies on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another v State of Maharashtra and others : (1997) 1 SCC 134 ; Union of India v Kushala Shetty and Others : (2011) 12 SCC 69 ; N.G. Projects Ltd., v Vinod Kumar Jain and Others : (2022) 6 SCC 127 and National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd., v Montecarlo Ltd., and Another : (2022) 6 SCC 401 . 10. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition made submissions supporting the stand taken by the National High Way Authorities. 11. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. Before appreciating the rival contentions and considering the relief sought for in the writ petition, it may appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the NH Act hereunder. i. Section 3A confers power on the Central Government to acquire land for a public purpose i.e., for building, maintenance, management or operation of a National High Way or part thereof by Notification in the Official Gazette. ii. Section 3B of the Act confers power to enter for survey on issuance of a Notification under subsection (1) of Section 3A. iii. Section 3C of the Act contemplates hearing of objections of any person interested in the land to be submitted within 21 days from the date of publication of Notification under sub-section(1) of Section 3A of the Act and Section 3(C)(2) provides that the objections submitted under Section 3C(1) of the Act shall be considered by the competent authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Objector and passing of an order either allowing and disallowing the objections. As per Section 3(C)(3), any order made by the competent authority under sub-section(2) shall be final. iv. Section 3D of the Act deals with the Declaration of acquisition and 3D(2) specifically provides that on a publication of the Declaration under sub-section(1), the land vests absolutely with the Central Government free from all encumbrances. v. Section 3G of the Act deals with the determination of amount payable as compensation. 12. It is pertinent to state here that the NH Act is a special enactment and a self contained code. v. Section 3G of the Act deals with the determination of amount payable as compensation. 12. It is pertinent to state here that the NH Act is a special enactment and a self contained code. As per Section 3D(2) of the NH Act on the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In the present case it is not in dispute that Section 3D publication, in respect of subject matter lands, was issued on 12.04.2016 and additional Section 3D was published on 19.01.2018. Thus, from the respective dates, the lands in question vest absolutely with the Central Government in terms of the above provision of law and the petitioners herein ceased to be the owners of the lands, which are subject matter of acquisition. In terms of the provisions of the NH Act they are entitled to compensation only. Be that as it may. The material filed along with the counter affidavit, which is not disputed, go to show that the 4th respondent had passed supplementary awards in respect of the petitioners’ claims towards trees, drip irrigation, barbed wire fencing, bore well etc. If the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the determination of compensation in respect of the said items, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the NHAI, they have to invoke the provisions of the said Act. Section 3 G(5) of the NH Act provides that in the event the amount determined by the competent authority (Respondent No.4-CALA) under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable, the amount shall be determined by the arbitrator i.e., the District Collector–5th respondent herein. When the Act provides for specific remedy, continuation of proceedings by this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not warranted. 13. The other submission to the effect that the respondents cannot proceed with the works without paying compensation to the petitioners, the same merits no appreciation for two reasons: (a) on publication of Notification under Section 3D of the NH Act, the petitioners ceased to be owners of the land under acquisition; (b) Their private interest is subservient to the public interest at large. 14. At this juncture it would be appropriate to refer to the case law relied on by the learned counsel for NHAI. 15. 14. At this juncture it would be appropriate to refer to the case law relied on by the learned counsel for NHAI. 15. In Ramniklal N. Bhutta case (supra) as long back as in 1997 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia held as follows: ? “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-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 — indeed any of their discretionary powers.” 16. In Kushala Shetty case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia held that the projects involving construction of new Highways and widening of existing highways, which are vital for the development of the infrastructure in the country are entrusted to experts in the field of highways and that detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relevant factors like heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest cannot be stopped. 17. In N.G. Projects Ltd., case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealing with the Government contracts and tenders involving public interest/importance inter alia held that since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of legislature as envisaged under Section 41 (ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, those projects should not be stayed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also opined that any contract of public services should not be interfered with lightly and in any case there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. 18. In the light of the above settled legal position, this Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the NHAI that the continuation of the interim orders would be detrimental to the interest of public at large. Accordingly, the interim order is vacated. 19. 18. In the light of the above settled legal position, this Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the NHAI that the continuation of the interim orders would be detrimental to the interest of public at large. Accordingly, the interim order is vacated. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of the NH Act, more particularly, Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition leaving it open to the petitioners to make appropriate applications before the 5th respondent for determination/enhancement of compensation, if they so desire. In the event the petitioners adopt such course of action, the 5th respondent shall pass appropriate awards, in accordance with law. 20. With the above observation Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 21. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.