ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of direction upon the respondents no.3 to take a final decision on the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 3 C (1) of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1956’) pursuant to the objection invited through Gazette notification dated 29.01.2021 published in local daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ on 06.02.2021. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.3 not to send the report to the Central Government under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 unless and until decision is being taken by the concerned respondent on the objection filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon respondent nos.1 & 2 not to publish the notification in the official Gazette with respect to acquisition of the land in question until a decision is taken by the competent authority on the objection filed by the petitioner. It has further been prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 to review the alignment of the proposed four lane road only with respect to the land in question especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has setup a steel factory over the land proposed to be acquired by the respondents, which is in a position of ready to run, whereas there is a huge chunk of vacant/barren “Gairmajarua” land adjacent to the said land, which can conveniently be utilized for construction of the proposed four laning of NH-23 (now NH-320). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the land, appertaining to plot nos.165, 166 & 170 of Khata Nos.1/2 and plot no.160 of Khata no.33, Khewat No.1, Tauzi No.28, Thana No.24, Mauza Bantara, P.S. Gola, Pargana Gola vide two sale deeds dated 20.09.2019 and 29.07.2020, measuring an area of 04 acres & 34.33 decimals and 05 acres & 14.67 decimals, respectively (total area 9.49 acres). Thereafter, a steel factory was established by it for manufacturing of M. S. ingot and slag. At present, 20 people are directly employed in the said factory and approx. 500 local people will get job opportunity once the petitioner’s factory unit starts. 3. Thereafter, a steel factory was established by it for manufacturing of M. S. ingot and slag. At present, 20 people are directly employed in the said factory and approx. 500 local people will get job opportunity once the petitioner’s factory unit starts. 3. The Central Government issued a gazette notification dated 29.01.2021 published in local daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ on 6th February, 2021 showing its intention to acquire land concerning several villages of Ramgarh for widening four laning of N.H.23 (now N.H.320) under Bharatmala Project pertaining to Jaina More-Gola-Ormanjhi Section including land of Bantara village from K.M. 55.650 to K.M. 71.323 (Gola-Ormanjhi Section). In the proposed acquisition, a big chunk of the aforesaid land of the petitioner has also been included, which is situated almost in the middle of the petitioner's project, and the same will completely ruin its entire newly setup steel factory unit. 4. The petitioner filed an objection on 17.02.2021 under Section 3C(1) of the Act, 1956 explaining entire facts and also suggested/requested for acquiring the adjacent Gairmajarua land by slightly changing the alignment of the proposed four lane so as to save its factory unit. On receipt of the objection, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh-respondent no.3 registered the same as Land Acquisition case no.1/2020-21 and vide memo no.271 dated 07.04.2021 directed the petitioner to appear on 19.04.2021 for pursuing its objection with a condition that in case of non-appearance on the said date, there would be no further hearing. The petitioner appeared before the respondent no.3 through its counsel on 19.04.2021, however, the case was not heard on the said date. Thereafter, neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner again approached the respondent no.3, however, no specific information was provided to it. The respondent-NHAI in its counter affidavit has, however, annexed a copy of the final order dated 16.07.2021, whereby the petitioner’s objection was rejected. 5. It is further submitted that the order dated 16.07.2021 has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order sheet itself shows that hearing could not be done on 19.04.2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic and on the next date also i.e. 7.5.2021 the record could not be put up due to certain reason. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.3 to inform the petitioner about the next date of hearing. The order sheet itself shows that hearing could not be done on 19.04.2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic and on the next date also i.e. 7.5.2021 the record could not be put up due to certain reason. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.3 to inform the petitioner about the next date of hearing. However, the said authority proceeded at its own and without hearing the parties decided the objection on 16.7.2021, which has frustrated the very object of the Act, 1956. It is an established procedure of law that before acquiring certain land, the Government is required to invite objection and after providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, to decide objection(s), if any. Moreover, if no objection is filed or the objection is disallowed, then the competent authority has to submit report regarding the same to the Central Government and only thereafter the Central Government has to make a declaration regarding acquisition of land for the proposed purpose under Section 3D of the Act, 1956. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner has made huge investment in setting up its factory unit and as such acquisition of the land will irreparable loss and injury to it. There is a huge chunk of vacant/barren “Gairmajarua” land adjacent to the petitioner’s land which may be utilized after slight change in the alignment of the project which can conveniently be done by the concerned authorities as the project itself is at the beginning stage and the work has not yet started. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that after getting objection from the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by the concerned authority through “Amin” & “Kanungo” of the Land Acquisition Office, Ramgarh and after considering their report and objection filed by the petitioner, the final order was passed by the respondent no.3. In fact, the petitioner did not take interest in its case, once the functioning of the offices properly resumed after Covid-19 pandemic (2nd wave) and the respondent no.3 cannot be blamed for the latches on its part. There is no provision for serving repeated notices and as such the respondent no.3 decided the petitioner’s objection vide order dated 16.07.2021. It is lastly submitted that the alignment of the project cannot be changed due to personal inconvenience of the petitioner. 8. There is no provision for serving repeated notices and as such the respondent no.3 decided the petitioner’s objection vide order dated 16.07.2021. It is lastly submitted that the alignment of the project cannot be changed due to personal inconvenience of the petitioner. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 16.07.2021 has been passed by the respondent no.3, rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner in violation of the procedure provided in the Act, 1956 which mandates for providing opportunity of hearing to a person who has filed objection under section 3C(1) of the Act, 1956. 10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the petitioner after filing the objection lost interest in the case and, thus, the order dated 16.07.2021 has been passed after duly considering the ground of objection raised by the petitioner. 11. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer Sections 3A and 3C of the Act, 1956, which read as follows:- 3A. 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. (2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land. (3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language.] 3C. Hearing of objections.--(1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. Hearing of objections.--(1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, it any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1.961). (3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final.” 12. Thus, Section 3A of the Act, 1956 empowers the Central Government in the interest of public purpose to acquire any land for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof and to publish notification in the official gazette declaring its intention to acquire such land which shall include the brief description of the land. Section 3C provides for hearing of the objection of any person interested in the land and while doing so the objector shall be given opportunity of hearing either in person or through a legal practitioner. 13. In the case in hand, the respondent no.3 has annexed copy of entire order sheets as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and on bare perusal of the same it appears that on getting objection from the petitioner, the respondent no.3 registered Land Acquisition Case No.01/2020-21. Thereafter, notices were issued to the parties. The petitioner appeared before the respondent no.3 on 19.04.2021 and requested for adjournment of the case due to Covid-19 pandemic and, thereafter, the case was fixed for 07.05.2021 and on the said date the record of the case could not be placed due to said pandemic. On 01.07.2021, an enquiry report was called from the Circle Officer, Gola and finally on 16.07.2021 the final order was passed rejecting the petitioner’ objection. On 01.07.2021, an enquiry report was called from the Circle Officer, Gola and finally on 16.07.2021 the final order was passed rejecting the petitioner’ objection. In the order dated 16.07.2021, the respondent no.3 had quoted the report submitted by the “Amin” and “Kanungo” stating that on the basis of the spot verification it was found that out of the total land measuring an area of 2.4888 acres under acquisition, a shed was constructed on 0.0640 acre of land. It was further reported that local people were objecting any change in the alignment of four laning of NH-320. 14. The respondent no.3 observed in the order dated 16.07.2021 that the alignment of Jaina More-Gola-Ormanjhi section concerning National Highway nos.320 and 320B under Bharatmala Project was sanctioned on 30.07.2018 i.e. prior to the date of purchase of the land in question by the petitioner. If the alignment of the N.H. is changed, the project will be delayed and the same will also increase its cost. It has also been observed that the damage caused to the petitioner on account of present alignment is minimal whereas no damage is caused to the general public as per the present alignment. 15. Thus, on perusal of the order sheet it transpires that on receiving objection from the petitioner, notices were issued to the parties pursuant to which the petitioner appeared before the respondent no.3 on 19.04.2021 and requested for some time on the ground of Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. On subsequent dates, the petitioner did not appear before the respondent no.3 claiming that the next date of hearing was not communicated to it. This Court is of the view that once the petitioner had appeared in the proceeding, it was not the responsibility of the respondent no.3 to issue repeated notices to it informing each and every date, rather the petitioner was supposed to be vigilant about the proceeding initiated on its objection. It is expected from the authority dealing with the objections filed under section 3C(1) that no unnecessary delay is caused in deciding the same so that the project is completed within the scheduled time and as such the respondent no.3 having found that the petitioner did not appear on two consecutive dates, decided its objection on the basis of the documents available on record. 16. 16. Moreover, the objection of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent no.3 while passing the order dated 16.07.2021. The petitioner is seeking change in alignment of the said project contending that the present alignment will cause huge loss to it. It has also claimed that there is Gairmajarua land in the adjacent village i.e. “Kumhardagga” which can be utilized for the purpose of four laning of the NH-320. 17. In the case of Daulat Singh Surana & Others Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector & Others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “40. Public purpose will include a purpose in which the general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual is 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.” 18. Thus, it is well settled that the public interest will prevail over the private interest. The road under the Bharatmala Project is being constructed for the benefit of the public at large and the same cannot be compromised on mere ground that the same will cause financial loss to an individual. It is obvious that some loss is caused to individuals during acquisition process and it is almost impossible to satisfy everyone. If the interest of each and every individual is taken into consideration, particularly with respect to alignment, it will not be possible to complete any road project. That apart, the petitioner has purchased the land after alignment of the project and as such it cannot claim for change in the existing alignment of NH-320. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 20. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.