ORDER : 1. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities, without following the procedure contemplated under the relevant statutes and in sheer violation of the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act and also the principles of natural justice, have issued the impugned proceedings in Rc.B(L.A.)2265/2021, dated 08.11.2023 and 28.11.2023 and are consequently trying to demolish the structures. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings for respondent no.6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would submit that, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.6026 of 2023, assailing the proceedings of the 6th respondent- Executive Engineer (R&B) directing the IOCL authorities to remove the subject filling station being run by the petitioner, since the site covered by it is required for construction of two-lane Major Bridge, and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the authorities to conduct survey in the presence of all the parties. The learned counsel would further submit that, though a survey as directed was conducted, survey report has not been communicated to the petitioner despite submitting representation by the petitioner. Moreover, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, issued proceedings dated 8.11.2023 directing IOCL authorities to stop supply of fuel and further to remove the filling station and thereafter without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner issued proceedings dated 28.11.2023 directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land. The impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2023 and 28.11.2023 were behind the back of the petitioner without putting him on notice and that too without communicating the survey report. Thus, the impugned proceedings are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that survey report made it clear that 90% of the area covered by the subject filling station is in the road land and further there is no lease agreement in force in respect of the subject canal poramboke land between the irrigation authorities and the firm and that the filling station is being run unauthorisedly, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued proceedings for evacuation of the filling station for execution of the sanctioned work of two-lane major bridge. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner was furnished the survey report along with the proceedings dated 28.11.2023 and thus there is no violation of principles of natural justice as sought to be projected by the petitioner. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings, by placing on record the written instructions, would submit that the petitioner neither submitted objections to the notification published under Section 3A of the National Highways Act (for short, ‘the Act’) nor attended enquiry under Section 3G of the Act, despite being published as envisaged in the Act. The existing narrow bridge could not accommodate hustle free and smooth flow of traffic and further the existence of a sharp curve immediately after the narrow bridge just infront of the filling station led to so many fatal accidents resulting in declaring that stretch as Black Spot by the District Road Safety Committee. Keeping in view the pathetic situation, the Ministry of Roads & Transport has sanctioned Two Lane Major Bridge across Penna river. In view of orders of status quo granted, the authorities could not proceed with the work and the same led to huge uproar among the inhabitants. The petitioner did not submit any objections to section 3A notification and therefore, consequent to publication of 3D declaration, the subject land shall vest in Central Government free from all encumbrances. There is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner and the same is nothing but a ruse to bring this frivolous litigation within the folds of writ jurisdiction. There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perusal of the material available on record and the written instructions dated 07.12.2023 would disclose that the petitioner has been running a filling station in an extent of 6950 sq.feet having been inducted into possession by Irrigation Department under a lease deed of the year 1964. The Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, New Delhi has sanctioned the work for Construction of Two Lane Major Bridge across Penna River including approaches parallel to existing two lane bridge in SPSR Nellore District. For execution of the above work, petitioner filling station has to be removed. 7. The Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, New Delhi has sanctioned the work for Construction of Two Lane Major Bridge across Penna River including approaches parallel to existing two lane bridge in SPSR Nellore District. For execution of the above work, petitioner filling station has to be removed. 7. In that process, the 6th respondent- Executive Engineer (R&B) issued proceedings to the Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited to remove the filling station. The said proceedings were assailed by the petitioner by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.6026 of 2023, which was disposed of, directing the authorities to conduct survey and demarcate the road margins. There is no dispute regarding conducting of survey and participation of a representative of the petitioner. 8. According to the R&B authorities, out of the total extent of 6970 sq.ft. covered by the filling station, an extent of 6534 sq.ft. is covered under road land and the remaining extent of 436 sq.ft is canal poramboke land. 9. The impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2023 and so also the written instructions referred to supra placed on record by the learned Government Pleader for R&B further state that there is no lease agreement in force between the Irrigation Department and IOCL or Nagavani Filling Station in respect of the lease of the canal poramboke land and that an amount of Rs.73,03,774/- was levied on the petitioner filling station by the irrigation department for running filling station unauthorisedly since January,2000. The same was not disputed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 10. The writ affidavit did not contain any particulars as to the actual extent of site leased out by the government for establishment of filling station and further the conclusions arrived in the survey report that an extent of 6534 sq.ft. is covered under road land and the remaining extent of 436 sq.ft is canal poramboke land are not disputed. 11. The apex Court in Competent Authority v. Bangalore Jute Factory and others (2005) 13 SCC 477 , interpreted the aforesaid provision in the following words: “We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under sub-section 3A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such.” 12. The observations referred to supra in categorical terms say that the scope of objections for acquisition of land under the National Highways Act is very limited. In the instant case, the purpose of acquisition is for a public purpose of construction of a two land major bridge. 13. The petitioner did not submit objections to the notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act. Declaration under Section 3D of the Act has also been published as envisaged in the Act. As per sub Section 2 of Section 3D of the Act, on the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, the only remedy available to the petitioner would be to participate in the award enquiry claiming compensation or damages for the land acquired, if at all entitled. The material would disclose that the petitioner had also not participated in the award enquiry. The National Highways Act does not specify the need of issuing independent notices to all the persons interested in the lands proposed to be acquired. Publication of notification and declaration are constructive notices of acquisition proceedings on the petitioner. Thus the contention raised by the petitioner that he was not put on notice of the acquisition proceedings is farfetched. 14. The only contention raised by the petitioner is non furnishing of survey report to the petitioner. However, the proceedings dated 28.11.2023 clearly states that survey report is enclosed to those proceedings. Moreover, since the land stood vested with the Central Government from the date of publication of 3D declaration, mere non furnishing of survey report would not vitiate the entire acquisition process as sought to be contended by the petitioner. At the most, the petitioner is only entitled to claim compensation or damages, if any, entitled to by him on account of acquisition of the land before the authorities concerned and he cannot maintain this writ petition for setting aside the impugned proceedings whereunder steps were initiated for removal of the filling station from the acquired land that stood vested with the Central Government. 15. 15. It is also relevant here to note that land was acquired for construction of two lane Major Bridge for ease of traffic and thus larger public interest is involved in implementing the projects which always should be of paramount importance vis-à-vis individual interest of a party. Further, the photographs of the location of the filling station placed on record would indicate that removing the filling station is indispensable for execution of the project and the same cannot be exempted from the acquisition process. 16. In view of the above, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is misconceived, having been filed inventing an imaginary cause of action of non supply of survey report, which does not at all can be construed as a fundamental breach enough to vitiate the acquisition proceedings. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to get his grievances redressed available to him under the provisions of the National Highways Act. The authorities are directed to take steps strictly in accordance with land and provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.