JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since the present set of writ petitions arise from an alike or common notification(s) for acquisition, as became made by the corespondent No.1, through its exercising the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956'). Therefore, all the writ petitions are amenable for being decided through a common verdict. 2. However, yet it is deemed imperative to reproduce the relief(s), as claimed in each of the writ petition (supra). Relief(S) Asked For In Cwp-3294-2022 3. The petitioner-Trust seeks quashing of notification bearing No.S.O.3497(E), as became made on 26.08.2021, and, as becomes enclosed in Annexure P-8, where through, the corespondent No.1 thus declared its intention to acquire the lands of the petitioner-Trust, along with some other parcels of land, for the purpose of building (widening/two-four laning etc.), maintenance, management and operation of the newly proposed National Highway Ambala Ring Road, in the stretch of land from km. 0+000 to km. 41+472 in District Ambala. Relief(S) Asked For In Cwp-18847-2022 4. The petitioners herein seek relief for the quashing of notification bearing No.S.O.3497(E), as became made on 26.08.2021, and, as be-comes enclosed in Annexure P-8, where through, the corespondent No.1 has declared its intention to acquire certain parcels of land, including the lands of the petitioners, for the very purpose, which becomes unfolded in CWP-3294-2022. 5. The further relief, as asked for in the instant writ petition, relates to quashing of notification bearing No.S.O.2963(E), as became drawn, on 30.06.2022, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3D of the Act of 1956, and, which becomes enclosed in Annexure P-16. Relief(S) Asked For In Cwp-24109-2022 6. The petitioners herein seek thus reliefs, similar to the ones, as become asked for in CWP-18847-2022, inasmuch as, (i) for quashing of Annexure P-20, which carries a notification bearing No.S.O.3497(E), and, as became made on 26.08.2021, and, (ii) for quashing of Annexure P-25, wherein, becomes enclosed a notification bearing No.S.O.2963(E), as drawn on 30.06.2022. Relief(S) Asked For In C Wp-5695-2022 7. Relief(S) Asked For In C Wp-5695-2022 7. The petitioners herein have also asked for the quashing of notification bearing No.S.O.3497(E), as became made on 26.08.2021, and, as becomes enclosed in Annexure P-7, where through, the corespondent No.1 thus declared its intention to acquire the lands of the petitioner-Trust, along with some other parcels of land, for the very purpose, which becomes extracted in the CWP-3294-2022. Relief(S) Asked For In Cwp-11159-2020 8. The sole petitioner herein seeks quashing of the notifications/ declarations, as become respectively enclosed in Annexures P-8 and in P12, and, as became respectively drawn on 27.09.2017, and, on 21.06.2018, respectively under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A, and, under Section 3D of the Act of 1956. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the award (Annexure P-14), besides he also seeks quashing of the notice (Annexure P-15), and, of the order (Annexure P-19). 9. The last relief, as asked for in the instant petition, is for making a mandamus upon the respondent(s) concerned, to release the petitioner's lands from acquisition. Relief(S) Asked For In Cwp-17847-2023 10. The petitioner herein seeks the quashing of:- (i) notification bearing No.S.O.3497(E), as became made on 26.08.2021, and, as becomes enclosed in Annexure P-3; (ii) of notification bearing No.S.O.2963(E), as became drawn, on 30.06.2022, and, as becomes enclosed in Annexure P-12, and, (iii) besides seeks quashing of the impugned award. 11. The petitioner also seeks the making of a mandamus, upon, the corespondents No.1 and 3, for providing service lane alongside the pro-posed alignment, with a right to user thereof up to Naraingarh Road, in lieu of his blocked revenue rasta. Submissions Of Learned Counsel(S) For Petitioner(S), And, Reasons For Rejecting The Same 12. Since an argument is made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), that the authority concerned had granted a C.L.U. to the petitioner-Trust, therefore, on the above plank, he addresses an argument before this Court, that thereby the acquisition proceedings, as drawn in respect of the petitioner's lands be ordered to be dropped. Resultantly, in respect of the above prayer, this Court is required to be making a separate adjudication. 13. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above prayer is rejected. Resultantly, in respect of the above prayer, this Court is required to be making a separate adjudication. 13. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above prayer is rejected. The reason for rejecting the above prayer is founded, upon, a decision, as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "State of Haryana v. M/s Vinod Oil and General Mills", 2014 (15) SCC 410 , whereins, in paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof, paragraphs whereof become extracted hereinafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court had disapproved the decision of this Court in its quashing the acquisition proceedings, thus merely on the ground, that a C.L.U. became granted to the estate-holder concerned. "8. Permission for change of land use and developing the area as an industry, in our view, has no relevance while considering the validity of acquisition. If we are to hold that once permission is granted for change of land use for developing the area as an industry and thereafter State cannot acquire it, then a situation may rise that for all time to come, the particular area cannot be acquired which may not be in the larger public interest. We are also unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the action of the respondents/ State in approving setting up of a factory and then acquiring the same is unreasonable. It is not as if the lands where factories are set up are immune from any acquisition. The only effect of permission for such change in land use and approval for construction and developing the area as an industry can be recognised as valid only to the extent as to confer right upon the land owners to recover the appropriate compensation. 9. The land was acquired for development and utilization of the same for residential and commercial purposes in sector 9 & 11, Hissar. So far as the purpose of acquisition of land is concerned, the High Court observed that "the acquisition is not for essential public services such as development of infrastructure, railways, metro etc...." High Court was not correct in observing that only development of infrastructure, railways or irrigation, water supply, drainage, road etc are primary public purposes. Public purpose includes a purpose involving general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual directly or indirectly involved. Public purpose includes a purpose involving general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual directly or indirectly involved. Individual interest must give way to public interest as far as public purpose in respect of acquisition of land is concerned." 14. Furthermore, in a case titled "State of Haryana v. Eros City Developers Private Limited", (2016) 12 SCC 265 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had declined to quash the acquisition proceedings by invoking the doctrine of "promissory estopple"/doctrine of "legitimate expectation", as was claimed, thus on the basis of grant of a C.L.U. concerned, to the estate-holder concerned. The relevant observations, in the above regard, become extracted hereinafter:- "....15. As far as the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent relating to the promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation is concerned, in Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court while enumerating the principles relating to doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation has clearly held that the protection of legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, personal benefit must give way to public interest and the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked which would block public interest for private benefit." 15. The next argument, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is founded upon Section 3 of The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, whereins, there is a complete prohibition against erection or re-erection of any building, or, to make or extend any excavation or layout any means of access to a road, within one hundred meters of either side of the road reservation of a bye-pass or expressway, or, within thirty meters on either side of the road reservation of any scheduled road not being bye-pass on expressway. "3. "3. Prohibition to erect or re-erect buildings along scheduled roads.-- 1[No person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or layout any means of access to a road within one hundred meters on either side of the road reservation of a bye-pass or expressway, or, within thirty meters on either side of the road reservation of any scheduled road not being bye-pass or expressway:] Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to:-- (a) the repair to a building which was in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act or any erection or re-erection of such a building which does not involve any structural alteration or addition therein; or (b) the erection or re-erection of a building, which was in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act and which involves any structural alteration or addition, with the permission of the Director; or 2[(bb) a building, which was in existence, immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development (Haryana Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, or to any repair, erection or re-erection of such a building which does not involve any structural alteration or addition therein, on payment of such fee, as may be prescribed; or" (c) the laying out of any means of access to a road with the permission of the Director; 3[or] (d) the erection or re-erection of a motor-fuel-filling station or a bus queue-shelter with the permission of the Director] 3[; or] 4[(e) "the public utility buildings" and "community assets" which were in existence immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development (Haryana Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996. Explanation. - (1) "Public utility buildings" means buildings belonging to Government, Government Controlled Organisations, Local Bodies, Voluntary Organisations and individuals which are being used for the benefit of public at large without profit motive; and (2) "Community assets" means assets belonging to Government, Government Controlled Organisations, Local Bodies, Voluntary Organisations and individuals which are created for the beneficial use of public at large without profit motive.] 16. Therefore, on the anvil of the above extracted provision, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), that the undertaking, or, the execution of the project concerned, at the instance of the National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'NHAI'), thus is vitiated and thereby, he has argued, that the launching of acquisitions in respect of the estates of the estate-holders concerned, is but flawed, and, is required to be quashed and set aside. 17. However, the above made argument does completely founder in the light of Section 24, as occurs in the Act of 1963, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, and, which saves the power of the Government or any other authority to acquire land or to impose restriction upon the use and development of land comprised in the controlled area under any other law for the time being in force, or, to permit the settlement of a settlement arising out of the exercise of powers under this Act by mutual agreement. "24. Savings- Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of the Government or any other authority to acquire land or to impose restriction upon the use and development of land comprised in the controlled area under any other law for the time being in force, or to permit the settlement of a claim arising out of the exercise of powers under this Act by mutual agreement." 18. Since the above referred savings to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, by the authority concerned, does obviously empower the apposite authority to thereby make lawful acquisitions of the estates of the estate-holders concerned. Resultantly, the launching of acquisition proceedings, even in respect of those estates which fall within the ambit of the Act of 1963, does not at all vitiate nor renders flawed the launching of the acquisition proceedings, at the instance of the authority concerned. 19. Moreover, the special enactment relating to acquisitions, is a Central Legislation, and thereby, thus overrides any statutory provision, as incorporated in a legislation, as, made by the competent State Legislative Assembly concerned, whereby, there is preservation of jurisdiction in the Town Planners concerned, to prepare development plans for the areas concerned. 19. Moreover, the special enactment relating to acquisitions, is a Central Legislation, and thereby, thus overrides any statutory provision, as incorporated in a legislation, as, made by the competent State Legislative Assembly concerned, whereby, there is preservation of jurisdiction in the Town Planners concerned, to prepare development plans for the areas concerned. Therefore, unless there was a well laid intra vires the Constitution of India, rather a provision in the said made statute, by the State Legislative Assembly, thus requiring, that the acquiring authority prior to its launching the acquisition proceedings, rather seek and obtain approval from the Town Planner concerned, thereupon, obviously there was no jurisdiction vested in the State Town Planner concerned, or, in the District Town Planner concerned, to regulate the drawing of the layout plans, for thereby the acquired lands being put to acquisition. 20. Since, neither the special enactment for acquisition, as made by the Union Parliament, nor the statute, as enacted by the competent State Legislative Assembly, does ordain the above necessity. Therefore, the approvals, if any granted by the Town Planning Department concerned, to the undertaking of, or, the execution of the projects, at the instance of the authority concerned is completely meaningless, nor any lack of sanction being granted to the layout plan, by the State Town Planner, or, by the District Town Planner, rather also is unnecessary. 21. The grounds and reliefs common to these writ petitions, principally relate to the ratio of decidendi, as, set forth by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy & ors." (2021) 3 SCC 572 , whereby, the expostulations of law, as made in paragraph 64 thereof, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter, though are contended to be breached by the acquiring authority. However, for the reasons assigned hereinafter, the verdict (supra) necessitating the meteings of environmental approval to the project concerned, by the authority concerned, thus is not required to be meted, at this stage, nor the non meteing of approval by the competent authority rather would grant any leverage to the petitioner(s) to contend, that thereby the acquisition proceedings be declared to become vitiated. "64. "64. Be that as it may, one cannot be oblivious of the qualitative difference between a project necessitating acquisition of a large chunk of land at one place for continual commercial/ industrial activities to be carried out thereon as opposed to acquisition of a small strip of land in the area for construction of a road/ highway. The purpose of road/highway is merely to facilitate free passage through the same. It would have a floating population unlike in the case of a big project at one place occupying several square metres of land and engaging in continual commercial industrial activities thereon. The environmental impact would be and ought to be measured in relative terms and at the local level and site specific. Whereas, the requirement for road / national highway would essentially be in larger national interest. 65. For the purpose of considering the question posed before us, suffice it to observe that the prior environmental clearance in terms of 2006 notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Act read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, is required to be taken before commencement of the "actual construction or building work" of the national highway by the executing agency (NHAI). 22. The primary reason for forming the above inference emanates from the factum, that the necessity of prior environmental clearance, in terms of the Notification of 2006, as issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, does arise only before the commencement of the "actual construction or building work" of the national highway concerned, thus by the executing agency. 23. Therefore, since it is averred on affidavit, in the reply filed to the writ petition bearing No.CWP-18847-2022, that the actual construction or building work on the national highway concerned has not yet started. Therefore, there was no binding necessity, upon, the respondent(s) concerned to, at this stage, either ask for, or, obtain the ordained environmental clearance from the department concerned. 24. Therefore, there was no binding necessity, upon, the respondent(s) concerned to, at this stage, either ask for, or, obtain the ordained environmental clearance from the department concerned. 24. Furthermore, it is disclosed in the reply (supra), that on 24th - 25th May 2022, a meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee of Infra-I (1A- III) was held at INDUS Conference Hall, in the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as MoEF&CC), Indira Paravaran Bhawan, New Delhi, relating to various projects including the present project, whereins, after detailed deliberations, the Committee recommended the proposal for grant of environmental clearance to the instant project. In addition, it has also been detailed therein, that the matter is in progress with MoEF&CC, and, that the final approval will be obtained be-fore commencement of the construction work. 25. Therefore, when it is also detailed in the reply (supra), that DFO-wise proposal have become uploaded on the web portal, thereupon when the said clearance is in progress. Resultantly, when the project concerned has not yet commenced, or, has not come under execution, rather is to be executed, thereby no environmental clearance at the above phase is required, especially when also the environmental clearance for the project concerned has been recommended, and, is in the process of being finalized. Necessarily hence, any wants, at this stage, of environmental clearance, especially when also the environmental clearance to the project concerned is underways, thus estops the petitioner(s) to contend, that thereby the acquisition proceedings be declared to become vitiated. 26. Another common argument, as raised by the learned counsels for the petitioner(s) in these writ petitions, relates to the layout plan, as prepared by the authority concerned hence for execution of the project concerned, rather being not properly oriented, nor the same being well engineered. Contrarily, the learned counsels for the petitioner(s) contend, that the re-alignment of the project, be made, and thereby, the lands of the petitioner(s) be released from acquisition, or, the notification(s) (supra) bringing them to acquisition be declared to become flawed. 27. However, even the above argument is not acceptable to this Court. The reason for forming the above inference spurs from a decision made by this Court, in case titled "M/s Sharman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and ors. 27. However, even the above argument is not acceptable to this Court. The reason for forming the above inference spurs from a decision made by this Court, in case titled "M/s Sharman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and ors. v. Union of India & ors.", CWP-10537-2021, decided on 30.06.2021, wherein, in paragraph 7.10, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter, it has been laid that alignment of the road is dependent on various factors, which must have been examined by the authorities, before taking the decision to acquire the lands. Therefore, it has been declared therein, that such a decision is to be left open to the experts, as it does not fall within the scope of judicial review. "7.10. The last argument of learned counsel in para (X) cannot be accepted as members of this court do not have expertise in the field of laying roads. The alignment of the road is dependent on various factors which must have been examined by the authorities before taking the decision to acquire the land. Such decision must be left to the experts and does not fall within the scope of judicial review through a court unless the court finds the decision to be arbitrary or illegal." 28. Furthermore, the above argument also becomes completely be-numbed, in view of the verdicts recorded respectively by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court, respectively in case titled "Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty", Civil Appeal Nos.2866-2880 of 2011, Decided on: 21.02.2011, and, in case titled "Kimat Rai and sons (HUF) through its Karta Sh. Kimat Rai Sikri v. National Highways Authority of India and another", CWP-8514-2017, Decided on: 19.04.2018. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph 24 of its judgment rendered in "Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty" (supra), paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, has expostulated therein, that the projects involving constructions of new highways and relating to widening and development of the existing highways, are thus vital for the development of infrastructure of the country, and, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It has also been propounded therein, that the courts of law are ill-equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project, and/or, whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. It has also been propounded therein, that the courts of law are ill-equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project, and/or, whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. Therefore, it was concluded, that the scope of judicial review in respect of evaluating or scrutinizing the view of experts cannot thus become exercised, nor thereby there can be nullification of the acquisition process. "24. 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 subserve 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 the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained." 30. Likewise, this Court in paragraph 10 of its judgment rendered in "Kimat Rai and sons (HUF) through its Karta Sh. Kimat Rai Sikri v. National Highways Authority of India and another" (supra), paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter, it has been held that precedence has to be assigned to public interest, than to individual interest. Likewise, this Court in paragraph 10 of its judgment rendered in "Kimat Rai and sons (HUF) through its Karta Sh. Kimat Rai Sikri v. National Highways Authority of India and another" (supra), paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter, it has been held that precedence has to be assigned to public interest, than to individual interest. Furthermore, it has also been propounded therein, that the construction of roads in a busy locality is of utmost necessity, and, the acquisition of land and property for the said construction thus deserves to be viewed, keeping in view the wider public interest and national interest. "10. So far as construction of building on the plot in question is concerned, be that as it may, if the building is obstructing the widening of the National Highway, we have no reason to doubt that such building must also pave way as an individual's interest is always outweighed by the larger public interest involved in the construction of National Highway. There is no gainsaying that the construction of Bypass in such busy locality is utmost necessary and the acquisition of land/property for the construction of bypass or widening of National Highway, deserves to be viewed keeping in view the wider public interest and national interest." 31. Therefore, the alignment of roads or the preparation of layout plans is a task to be performed by the experts. When the engineers and experts have drawn a layout plan for the construction of the project concerned, thereby such a layout plan becomes unamenable for judicial scrutiny, or, judicial review. 32. In consequence, the argument of the learned counsels for the petitioner(s), that the layout plan is defective, or, is not well engineered, and, that rather an alternate route can yet be carved rather for the undertaking of the project concerned, thus is a misplaced submission and is rejected. 33. The learned counsel for the petitioner (in CWP-17847-2023) has contended, that an ammunition depot, under the control of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, is in vicinity, and, in proximity to the lands of the estate-holders concerned, and thereby, a necessity has arisen for re-aligning the path of the proposed road, to be executed at the instance of the NHAI. 34. 34. However, the above argument is rejected, in the face of the learned counsel for the respondent(s) concerned, placing on record the Minutes of the Meeting held on 05.07.2023, under the chairmanship of Defence Secretary, to discuss the matters pertaining to grant of N.O.C. to NHAI for construction of Ring Road at Panjokhra. The relevant extract of the Minutes of the Meeting (supra) is reproduced as under:- "A meeting was convened on 05.07.2023 under the chairmanship of Defence Secretary to discuss the issue of grant of NOC for construction of Ring Road at Panjokhra. A list of attendees is enclosed as Annexure-A 2. At the outset, JS(L&W) briefed about the background of the case. GOC, PH & HP(I) Sub Area gave a detailed presentation highlighting the strategic locations of both the FASF of Army and Weapon Storage Area (WSA) of Air Force and the nature and significance of ammunition stored in FASF. He suggested two options to resolve the issue. First option is to re-align the proposed ring road so that it is outside the restricted zone under WoDA 1903 and the second option is to adopt modern technology for construction of ammunition sheds viz. igloo/ underground storage so that the proposed road is outside the CQD of the ammunition dump. 3. Representative of Air HQ also gave a detailed presentation highlighting the necessity of the WSA for maintaining the combat capabilities of Air Force. After detailed presentation, representative of Air HQ gave three options: first to realign the proposed ring road so that it is beyond the purview of WoDA 1903, second to transfer the ammunition in excess of permissible OQD & IQD to a different location and create new facility for storage of the same, and third, to demolish and reconstruct WSA and rebuild the ammunition sheds using modern technology. 4. Representative of CFEES also gave a presentation. He informed that based on available data, there is a need to modernize the storage facility from safety point of view and to relocated the ammunition in excess of the capabilities of the sheds from both sites to different locations. 5. Member NHAI informed in the meeting that at this stage, it is not feasible to realign the proposed ring road. 6. 5. Member NHAI informed in the meeting that at this stage, it is not feasible to realign the proposed ring road. 6. After detailed deliberation, it was decided in consultation with all stakeholders that Board of Officers shall be convened by GOC, PH & HP(I) Sub Area comprising of representatives of CFEES, NHAI, Air Force and Army. The BOO will examine the matter on ground and suggest safety measures viz. construction of walls, igloos etc which would ensure safety of the public without compromising the combat ability of the Forces. The expenditure towards safety measures would be borne by NHAI. 7. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair." 35. The conclusion of the said meeting is detailed in paragraph 6 of the hereinabove extracted Minutes of the Meeting, which but underlines, that the Board of Officers shall be convened by GOC, PH & HP(I) Sub Area, comprising of representatives of CFEES, NHAI, Air Force and Army, and, that the said Board of Officers will examine the matter on ground and suggest safety measures, viz., construction of walls, igloos etc. which would ensure safety of the public without compromising the combat ability of the Forces. It is further recorded therein, that the expenditure towards safety measures would be borne by NHAI. 36. In the face of the above concluding paragraph, as carried in the above extracted Minutes of the Meeting, when does deal with the issue relating to the grant of N.O.C. to the NHAI, and, also deals with the issue of the safety of the public becoming not compromised. Moreover, when the expenditure towards safety measures, has been detailed therein, to be borne by the NHAI. Also, when it is further stated at the bar, by the learned counsel representing NHAI, that very shortly the requisite permission would be granted. Therefore in the face of the said submission and also in the face of the above extracted concluding paragraph, this Court deems it fit and proper to request the authority concerned to issue the requisite N.O.C., besides directs, the NHAI to incur all the requisite expenses, as are spoken in the hereinabove extracted Minutes of the Meeting, for thereby the safety of the public being ensured, and also thereby, the combat ability of the Forces also remaining uncompromised. 37. 37. The learned counsel for the petitioner (in CWP-17847-2023) further argues, that since through the acquisition of his estate(s) being made, thereby there is deprivation to him, of the rights of easement, as became earlier exercised by him, upon, the gair mumkin rasta. Therefore, on the above ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the acquisition proceedings be declared to become vitiated. 38. However, the above made argument is completely rudderless, and, is rejected as such, primarily for the reason, that on acquisition of the gair mumkin rasta, whereons, the petitioner earlier exercised his easementary rights, thus has also became the property of the acquiring authority concerned, besides when compensation in respect whereof, has also been deter-mined qua the estate-holders concerned. Therefore, on a complete lawful acquisition of the gair mumkin rasta rather being made, and, also when compensation in respect thereof becomes determined. Resultantly, the de-notification of the acquired lands, planked on the said right of easement, which is claimed on the gair mumkin rasta concerned, thus becomes a mis-espoused right in respect thereof. 39. For all the reasons (supra), this Court finds no merit in the writ petitions, and, is constrained to dismiss them. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned notification(s) and award(s) are affirmed and maintained. However, cases of the petitioners are thus dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- each, costs whereof shall become forthwith deposited, in the Poor Patient Funds of the P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh. The issue of de-termination of mesne profits is left open to become recoursed before the authority/civil court concerned.