JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ. - This intra-court appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.28273 of 2021 filed by the writ petitioner challenging Notification SO No.2563/E, dated 25.06.2021 issued by the 1st respondent proposing to acquire lands of the writ petitioner along with other lands in the stretch of National Highway No.216 from KM 126.1 to KM 10.8 of East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. 2. The writ petitioner owns lands admeasuring Ac.0.67 cents, Ac.0.33 cents and Ac.0.19 cents in Sy.No.654/1, 654-12, 654-9 and Ac.1.37 cents in Sy.No.656-5A, Ac.0.35 cents in Sy.No.661/2A2 and Ac.0.53 cents in Sy.No.663-1 of Gudimellanka village, Malkipuram Mandal, East Godavari District, which are subject matter of acquisition under the subject Notification, along with other lands. The acquisition is for formation of two-lane bypass road to NH 216 at the stretch of 126.1 KM to 10.8 KM from the bypass to Narsapur Town Road. Writ petitioner submitted objection to the Notification on 15.07.2021 stating that if the National Highway road passes through the middle of the land, agriculture will be affected as there is an ancient water tank over the land, which is used for fetching water for drinking and presently for his cattle and also for irrigation. The Tahsildar inspected the lands and submitted a report confirming the existence of two tanks. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent along with the 4th respondent reviewed the alignment and agreed to change the design from KM 18.200 to 19.900 subject to the condition that if the new land losers agree to give no objection, the alignment can be changed. According to the writ petitioner, there are 10 survey numbers in the modified alignment out of which one survey number belongs to him, four survey numbers are Government lands and 5 survey numbers are private lands. Therefore, there will be minimal acquisition in the modified alignment. 3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition finding that the landowners who will be affected under the proposed alignment have not consented for the proposed alignment and that majority of the landowners in the proposed alignment are small and marginal farmers, whereas the writ petitioner is a big farmer having Ac.12.52 cents of agricultural lands. 3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition finding that the landowners who will be affected under the proposed alignment have not consented for the proposed alignment and that majority of the landowners in the proposed alignment are small and marginal farmers, whereas the writ petitioner is a big farmer having Ac.12.52 cents of agricultural lands. It is also held that due to the existing alignment, the writ petitioner alone would suffer to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents, however, if the alignment is changed, more than 33 farmers who own small extent of land and solely dependent on agriculture, would suffer. It was also found that the argument of the writ petitioner that the existing alignment is in a curved manner and the new alignment if approved will be like a straight line and thereby reduces the distance by one kilometre is also incorrect, because the distance would be reduced only by 96 metres; thus, there will be no substantial cost reduction in the new alignment. 4. The learned single Judge has balanced the pros and cons of the original alignment and the new alignment to conclude that number of small and marginal farmers will be adversely affected if the new alignment is approved, whereas the writ petitioner is a big farmer and that there will be no substantial cost reduction. 5. It is settled law that writ court should be slow in interfering with the decision taken by experts. Before proceeding to acquire land for construction of National Highways or widening thereof, a Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by experts considering the extent of land required for acquisition. Therefore, an individual cannot be allowed to raise objection that the alignment prepared by experts should be changed only for the reason that his lands will be affected by acquisition. It is not the case that the proposed alignment would cover only Government lands and it is clear that the same would affect 33 small farmers. If the lands of the writ petitioner are excluded from acquisition, other group of persons would be adversely affected. Therefore, present is not a case where this court should exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondents to change the alignment. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner and we find no reason to interfere with the same. 6. Therefore, present is not a case where this court should exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondents to change the alignment. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner and we find no reason to interfere with the same. 6. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.