ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….issue appropriate Writ, Order, direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take possession of the land belonging to the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1-70 cents situated in Survey No.40 of Konthanapadu village in Kankipadu Mandal in Krishna District in pursuant to the acquisition proceedings proposing to acquire the land in Survey No.40/1, by projecting as if there is sub-division though there is no such sub-division and issuing the impugned proceedings dated 08.05.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s objections by giving false reasons as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to proceedings dated 08.05.2019 passed by the 4th respondent…..” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is one of the possessors of land to an extent of Ac.6-15 cents in R.S.No.40 of Konthanapadu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, adjoining NH-9/ NH-65 i.e. road leading from Vijayawada to Machilipatnam. The respondent authorities proposing to widen the said existing two-lane road into four- lane road, when fixed poles in the land of the petitioner without acquiring the same and without following due process of law, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.25911 of 2007 and this Court granted stay and finally disposed of the writ petition recording the statement of the learned standing counsel representing the respondents that by that time no notification had been issued and only on mere apprehension, the petitioner filed the writ petition and further directed the respondents not to disturb the petitioner’s possession, unless under due process of law. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondents published notification on 01.10.2008 under Section 3A(1) of National Highways Act, 1956 proposing to acquire an extent of 6950 Sq.Mts. and to the said notification the petitioner submitted a detailed objections under Section 3A(i) of the Act stating that the said notification was issued only to accommodate some rich landlords even by deviating from the norms and in fact, the respondents ought to have laid a straight road without a curve and on account of curve by proposing to lay a road through the land of the petitioner, the very purpose of public safety is affected. It is further stated that the respondents, without giving any opportunity to explain as to the objections raised by the petitioner and without conducting proper enquiry, straightaway issued notification under Section 3(D) and also further notification under Section 3(G) inspite of the reminder to the 4th respondent about the objections and also requesting to provide personal hearing. However, as the respondent authorities have issued notifications under Sections 3(D) and 3(G) of the Act without informing the outcome of objections raised by the petitioner, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.1134 of 2010 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide orders dated 24.11.2011 on the ground that the petitioner failed to question the declaration issued under Section 3(D) of the Act whereby vesting of the land attained finality. Aggrieved by the above said orders dated 24.11.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Writ Appeal No. 80 of 2012 and the Division bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide orders dated 07.08.2012 declaring the notification dated 24.09.2009 issued under Section 3(A) and the public notice dated 01.05.2010 issued under Section 3(G) as invalid and inoperative, however, the Division Bench was pleased to give opportunity to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner intimating the date of hearing and pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity. It is further case of the petitioner that under Section 3(D)(iii) of the Act, if a declaration was not published within one year from the date of publication of notification under sub section (1) of section 3(A) of the Act, the said notification ceases to have any effect. In the case on hand by the date of issuance of notice to the petitioner on 11.01.2017, the initial notification issued under Section 3(A)(i) of the Act was already lapsed. It is further stated that, though Writ Appeal was disposed of on 07.08.2012, the respondents issued notice dated 11.01.2017 directing him to appear personally on 19.01.2017 and though the initial notification issued stood lapsed, however, the petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent on 19.01.2017 and requested time to file his detailed objections and to permit him to appear through an Advocate. The 4th respondent, accordingly, postponed the matter and thereafter sent another notice dated 23.01.2017 asking the petitioner to appear on 31.01.2017 and accordingly the petitioner appeared and filed his objections. The 4th respondent, accordingly, postponed the matter and thereafter sent another notice dated 23.01.2017 asking the petitioner to appear on 31.01.2017 and accordingly the petitioner appeared and filed his objections. Thereafter, the 4th respondent adjourned the matter to various dates and finally passed orders dated 16.03.2017 disposing of the objections without considering the aspect of limitation as contemplated under Section 3(D)(iii) of the Act. It is the further case of the petitioner that challenging the orders passed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.NO.13842 of 2017 and this Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim direction on 19.01.2017 to maintain status quo and the said interim orders subsisting. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent again issued notification under Section 3(A)(i) proposing to acquire the land again by publishing the same in Sakshi on 11.01.2019 for the same purpose. The petitioner submitted his objections on 23.01.2019 raising objections to the proposed acquisition. Thereafter, on verification of the records, the petitioner came to know that his land is situated in Survey No.40, whereas the land situated in Survey No.40/1 is notified for acquisition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 11.02.2019 bringing it to the notice of the authorities that as per notification the land in Survey No.40/1 was sought to be acquired and he does not own any land in the said survey number and the land belongs to the petitioner is situated in Survey No.40 and thus he has no objection for acquisition of the land situated in Survey No.40/1 and further requested the authorities to ignore the objections filed by him. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued notice dated 22.04.2019 and pursuant thereto the petitioner appeared before the competent authority and requested not to acquire his land situated in Survey No.40 as the same is not the subject matter of the notification. However, the 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 08.05.2019 giving unsustainable reasons to the objections raised by the petitioner to the effect that in order to accommodate some of the adjoining owners the respondents deliberately changed the alignment of the road, resulting in a curve almost penetrating into the petitioner’s land affecting nearly Ac.1-70 cents and if the highway is formed straightly without curve, his land would not have been affected to that extent. The 4th respondent did not state as to why the respondents are not able to form the road in a straight line like existing road and resorted to form the road by taking a long curve at a particular point instead of forming a straight road. Apart from the above, though the petitioner’s land was situated in Survey No.40 but the notification was issued in respect of the land in Survey No.40/1, which might be a mistake, however the respondents instead of rectifying the said mistake, proceeded with false statement that the Tahsildar in his letter RC.A/2017, dated 31.03.2017 submitted Sub Division record in respect of R.S.No.40 and as per the said record R.S.No.40 was subdivided into R.S.40/1 & R.S.40/2 and the total extent of Ac.6-15 cents is sub-divided notionally into R.S.No.40/1 for an extent of Ac.1-70 cents and R.S.No.40/2 for an extent of Ac.4-45 cents. It is further stated that the said statement of the Tahsildar is an utter false and it is not known as to why and under what law, the total extent of Ac.6-15 belongs to the petitioner was sought to be divided in the year 2017 and the latest certified copy of e-Title deed obtained on 29.07.2019 reflects that the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.6-15 cents is located in Survey No.40. It is further stated that when the respondents issued notification in 2008 seeking to acquire some land and the said land was described as situated in Survey No.40/1 and if it was so, it is not known as to why the sub division is effected in 2017 much later to 2008 notification, subdividing the total extent of Ac.6-15 cents into R.S.No.40/1 and R.S.No.40/2 and how the respondents notified the land proposed to acquire in Survey No.40/1. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents are trying to create record to show that the petitioner’s land was sub-divided. It is also false to state the petitioner was shown FMB during enquiry. The certified copy of the FMB shows that the entire land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.6-15 cents was in Survey No.40. Thus, it is clear that there was no subdivision during the year 2017 as projected by the respondents. The certified copy of the adangal obtained on 25.04.2019 shows that the entire land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.6-15 cents is shown in the Survey No.40 only. Thus, it is clear that there was no subdivision during the year 2017 as projected by the respondents. The certified copy of the adangal obtained on 25.04.2019 shows that the entire land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.6-15 cents is shown in the Survey No.40 only. Thus, the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.4 are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the record and they are liable to be set aside. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent-Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition, inter alia contending that during the course of land acquisition by the 4th respondent-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada for formation of road from Vijayawada to Machilipatnam Section of NH-9, the R.S.No.40 of Konatanapadu village was sub divided into 40/1 & 40/2 and an extent of 6880 Sq.mts. in R.S.No.40/1 belonging to the petitioner was acquired in the year 2008 and later, due to technical reasons, the said Gazette Notification which was issued under Section 3A dated 01.10.2008 was lapsed. Thereafter, a new notification under Section 3A has been issued for an extent of 6880 sq.m. in R.S.No.40/1 of Konatanapadu village in the Official Gazette of India vide S.O.No.29(E), dated 02.01.2019 in E.O.No.25, dated 03.01.2019 and the substance of it was published in two daily newspapers. It is further stated that the alignment has been finalized basing on the technical, feasibility studies conducted and geometric improvements suggested to the existing by the DPR consultants for the design speed. The incorporation of changes in revenue records by the 4th respondent shall be taken up only after passing the award, but not prior to that. Hence, prayed to vacate the interim directions granted in I.A.No.1 of 2019, dated 06.08.2019 and to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The 4th respondent-Sub Collector filed counter reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit regarding issuance of the earlier notification under Section 3A, filing writ petitions and writ appeal by the petitioner questioning 3A notifications and ultimate lapsation due to technical reasons, inter alia contending that, fresh 3A notification was published in Gazette of India on 02.01.2019 two newspapers by following the procedure contemplated under the Act on 11.01.2019 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner in an extent of 6880 sq.mts. situated in R.S.No.40/1 of Konathanapadu village and in response thereto the petitioner filed his objection petition specifically objecting regarding the alignment and discrepancy in survey number stating that his land in an extent of Ac.6-15 cents is situated in R.S.No.40, whereas the notification has been issued for acquisition of land in R.S.No.40/1. Regarding alignment, the Project Director NHAI has furnished his remarks stating that the process of land acquisition shall be followed as per the DPR which was designed by the technical, feasibility studies conducted by the consultants and regarding discrepancy in the Survey number, the Tahsildar submitted report on 31.03.2017 stating that the total extent of Ac.6-15 cents in R.S.No.40 was sub-divided notionally into R.S.No.40/1 for an extent of Ac.1-70 cents and R.S.No.40/2 for an extent of Ac.4-45 cents and the same was explained to the petitioner with FMB also. It is further submitted that considering the reports of the Project Director and the Tahsildar, the objections raised by the petitioner were overruled and orders were passed under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act,1956 vide office proceedings Rc.B3/3339/2010, dated 08.05.2019. Thereafter, 3D proposals for an extent of 6880 sq.mts. in R.S.No.40/1 of Konathanapadu village were sent to NHAI for approval and the same were approved and published as per the procedure on 27.09.2019 in Gazette of India and in two newspapers on 12.11.2019, wherein it is clearly informed that the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and the petitioner was thereby requested to produce documentary evidence to prove his title over the property. However, the petitioner did not attend the office nor did he produce any documentary evidence to prove his title over the property and filed the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the alignment has finalized basing on the technical feasibility studies conducted and Goemetric improvements suggested to the existing by the DPR consultants for the design speed. Further, Sub Division report was prepared notionally for the purpose of land acquisition and the changes in the village accounts will be incorporated only after completion of entire land acquisition process, but the petitioner wrongly understood the matter in this regard. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The respondent Nos. Further, Sub Division report was prepared notionally for the purpose of land acquisition and the changes in the village accounts will be incorporated only after completion of entire land acquisition process, but the petitioner wrongly understood the matter in this regard. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed additional counter affidavit and while reiterating the contents of the counter further contended that after filing the counter affidavit, 3D(1) Gazette Notification, 3G(3) Public Notice and award was also passed. It is further stated that the land belongs to the petitioner in Survey No.40/1 was acquired pursuant to the award dated 18.06.2012 and awarded amount of Rs.94,60,000/-was also deposited by the National Highways Authority of India with the 4th respondent on 12.10.2012. But, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.A.No.80 of 2012, a fresh acquisition notification under Section 3A was issued on 02.01.2019. The 4th respondent has conducted personal hearing on 29.04.2019 and rejected the objections filed by the petitioner vide orders dated 08.05.2019, under Section 3C(2) of the National Highway Act, 1956. Therefore, the 4th respondent has submitted proposal for publication of 3D(1) Gazette Notification and accordingly the Government of India has published 3D Gazette Notification on 27.10.2019 and thereafter this writ petition has been filed and this Court granted ‘Status quo’ on 06.08.2019 Thereafter, 3G(3) public notice was got published in local newspapers on 12.11.2019 stating that the award enquiry is going to be conducted on 20.11.2019, but the petitioner did not participate in the award enquiry. The 4th respondent had passed the supplementary Award vide No.3/2021, dated 28.02.2021 for Rs.6,30,66,465/-(in addition to the deposited amount of Rs.94,60,000/-on 12-10-2012) and the entire amount as per the award was deposited by NHAI with the 4th respondent on 01.09.2022 requesting the 4th respondent to disburse the amount as per the award. The petitioner got benefited by an amount of Rs.6,30,66,465/-because of the court cases. It is further stated that though the land is vested with the Government of India pursuant to 3D notification vide S.O.No.3520(E), dated 27.10.2019, under Section 3D(2) of the Act, no work is undertaken in the petitioner’s land. The land of the petitioner is required for public purpose. The petitioner got benefited by an amount of Rs.6,30,66,465/-because of the court cases. It is further stated that though the land is vested with the Government of India pursuant to 3D notification vide S.O.No.3520(E), dated 27.10.2019, under Section 3D(2) of the Act, no work is undertaken in the petitioner’s land. The land of the petitioner is required for public purpose. Due to non construction of the highway in the petitioner’s land, many road accident occurred at that location and the highway became bottle neck there and the same is to be completed at the earliest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 further submitting that it is not known as to how the respondents published 3D Gazette notification on 27.10.2019 and 3G (iii) on 12.11.2019 and as to how the competent authority passed a supplementary award dated 28.02.2021 when the interim direction of status quo was passed by this Court on 06.08.2019. The action of the respondents in proceeding further despite grant of status quo amounts to contempt. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel, for Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S.Varma, learned standing counsel for NHAI for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 8. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would submit that 3A notification and 3D declaration were issued in respect of the land situated in R.S.No.40/1, whereas the petitioner’s land is situated in R.S.No.40 and subsequent to the objection petition filed by the petitioner, the authorities manipulated the record as if there was notional sub-division of the survey number into 40/1 and 40/2 in the year 2017, unmindful of the fact that 3A notification issued in the year 2008 itself notifies that the land in R.S.No.40/1 is sought to be acquired. The learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the certified copy of the adangal filed which shows that the entire land of the petitioner is situated in Survey No.40 only and hence it is clear that there was no sub division of the survey number as sought to be projected by the respondents. The learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the certified copy of the adangal filed which shows that the entire land of the petitioner is situated in Survey No.40 only and hence it is clear that there was no sub division of the survey number as sought to be projected by the respondents. This clearly shows that the petitioner own land in R.S.No.40 and he does not own any extent of land in R.S.No.40/1, whereas, the notification specifies that the land in R.S.No.40/1 is sought to be acquired. However, by virtue of the notification the land of the petitioner situated in R.S.No.40 was sought to be acquired. Thus, the notification does not meet the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act regarding giving brief description of land is concerned and thus the entire notification vitiates. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on Competent-Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 SCC 477 . The learned senior counsel would further submit that the reply given by the authorities to the objections raised by the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that no survey was done by the authorities pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.11324 of 2010 and thus the notification issued vitiates for non compliance of the procedure contemplated under the National Act, 1988 and also the directions given by this Court in the above writ petition. The learned senior counsel would further submit that, in the additional counter filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is stated that this writ petition has been filed after issuance of 3D Gazette notification, which is not true, since the writ petition is filed on 06.08.2019 whereas the 3D notification was issued on 27.10.2019 and moreover despite granting status quo by this Court, the respondent authorities have proceeded on and passed the award in utter ignorance of the orders of Status quo. The learned senior counsel would further submit that only with a view to accommodate the neighbouring rich land owners, the respondents deliberately changed the alignment of the road, resulting in a curve almost penetrating into the petitioner’s land affecting nearly Ac.1-70 cents and if the highway is formed straightly without curve, the petitioner’s land would not have been affected to that extent. It is further submitted that formation of the road without curves would be more safer than the road now sought to be laid by the respondents with so many bends and curves and at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the road with bends is technically more suitable than the straight road and this shows the attitude of the respondent authorities to favour the neighbouring land owners so that their lands may not be affected. Hence prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. On the other hand, Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing counsel for National High Way Authority of India, would submit that there is no intentional curve nor penetration of the road into the land of the petitioner as alleged and that the alignment of the road has been finalized based on the technical feasibility studies conducted and geometric improvements suggested to the existing by the DPR consultants for the design speed and further there was notional sub division of the Survey No.40 into R.S.No.40/1 & 40/2 notionally and the changes would be incorporated in the relevant revenue records after passing the final award but not prior thereto and thus the averments of the writ petition are false and untenable and there are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. The learned counsel would further submit that representation of the petitioner submitted to the authorities dated 23.01.2019 placed on record as P-4 and the representation of the petitioner submitted to Sub Collector Vijayawada dated 30.01.2017 placed on record as P-15 make it clear that the petitioner is well aware of notional subdivision of the land and that his land situated in Survey No.40/1 is proposed to be acquired and this falsifies the contention taken by the petitioner in this regard. The learned counsel would further submit that despite taking a bald plea that widening of road without curves would be more safer than the proposed road now sought to be laid, the petitioner did not choose to requisition the services of any separate DPR agency and file any technical and feasibility report and this itself shows that the allegations of mala fides and intentional penetration of road into his land are half-hearted and raised only for the sake of arguments and thus they are liable to be rejected. The learned counsel would further submit that the Competent Authority under Land Acquisition & Sub Collector, Vijayawada has passed the supplementary award vide Award No.3 of 2021, dated 28.02.2021 for Rs.6,30,66,465/-, in additional to the initial award passed for Rs.94,60,000/-deposited on 12.10.2012 and thus the petitioner was benefited by an amount of Rs.6,30,66,465/-and as he did not attend for enquiry to prove his title over the property, the said amount was deposited by the NHAI with the Sub Collector, Vijayawada. The learned counsel would further submit that the alignment proposed by the DPR experts has received approval of national Highways Authority because it being the best alignment and technically most feasible and the same cannot be set at naught basing on the oral and untenable objections raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Court is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision and thus the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in this Writ Petition. The learned counsel would further submit that though road was laid on either side of the subject property, due to the orders of status quo granted by this Court, road could not be laid in the land of the petitioner and as a result so many road accidents were occurred at that particular spot and the same was recognized as one of the accident pro zones and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on Union of India vs. KLushala Shettyand others, K.Venkateswarlu vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No.1924 of 2021 (decided on 31.03.2021), Chunduru Padmakumari vs. Government of India,rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others, Writ Appeal No. 254 of 2011 dated 28.08.2013, Samudrala Jhansi Lakshmi and another vs. The Union of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others, Writ Petition No.12473 of 2011, dated 27.04.2011. 10. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others, Writ Appeal No. 254 of 2011 dated 28.08.2013, Samudrala Jhansi Lakshmi and another vs. The Union of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others, Writ Petition No.12473 of 2011, dated 27.04.2011. 10. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would submit that even in 3A notification issued in the year 2008 itself shows that the land in R.S.No.40/1 was sought to be acquired and the petitioner attended enquiry and submitted his objections without raising any objection regarding sub division of the land and thus he is estopped from raising the said objection in the year 2019. In fact, the sub division of the land is only notional and necessary incorporations would be made to the revenue records only after passing the award and though the petitioner is aware of the same wants to make an attempt to wriggle out of the notification on that flimsy ground. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that alignment of the road was finalized basing on the technical feasibility studies conducted and Geometric improvements suggested to the existing by the DPR consultants for the design speed and the averments of the writ petition that an intentional curve at the petitioner’s land with a view to penetrate more into his land is vague, baseless and is utterly false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute regarding the fact that 3A notification was issued for acquisition of the land situated in R.S.No.40/1. The certified copy of the adangal filed by the petitioner makes it clear that the land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.6-15 cents is situated in R.S.No.40 only. There is also no dispute that the first and foremost 3A notification of the year 2008 also notifies that the land situated in R.S.No.40/1 is sought to be acquired. Further, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has attended the enquiry and submitted his objections even for the first 3A notification of the year 2008. However, he did not raise any objection regarding discrepancy in survey number. Further, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has attended the enquiry and submitted his objections even for the first 3A notification of the year 2008. However, he did not raise any objection regarding discrepancy in survey number. It is the specific contention of the respondent authorities that sub-division of the property is only notional and as per the procedure, necessary incorporations would be made to the revenue records only after the award was passed. Whatever might it be, the petitioner, right from the year 2008, is well aware that Ac.1-75 cents out of Ac.6-15 cents of his land, is sought to be acquired by the authorities for laying a road. Hence, the petitioner cannot now contend that discrepancy, if any, in the survey number vitiates the 3A notification. Therefore, the said objection raised by petitioner is not at all tenable and hence the same is liable to be rejected. 12. Regarding the next contention that an intentional curve to the road was made at the petitioner’s site is concerned, in view of the contradictory and contract submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court, with a view to know the ground reality, at the request made by the learned counsel, has appointed Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, Advocate Commissioner, to inspect the Survey Nos.40 and 40/1 of Konthanapadu village along with Mandal Surveyor and technical officials of National Highway Authority of India to verify and report the ground position as to whether the road laid by the NHAI took any intentional curve at the petitioner’s land and further the Commissioner shall verify the original plan appended to the notification dated 02.01.2019 to find out as to whether the road laid was in conformity with it or there were any deviations. Accordingly, the learned Advocate Commissioner has inspected the subject property and filed his report. 13. As per the report filed by the commissioner, there was a curve at the petitioner’s land and that resulted in acquisition of more extent of the petitioner’s land than his opposite landowner. An extent of 6950 sq.mts. of the petitioner’s land was acquired, whereas an extent of 2800 sq.mts. of the opposite land owner of the petitioner and more particularly in Survey No.42/4, where a college building is situated, an extent of 1100 sq.meters is only acquired. An extent of 6950 sq.mts. of the petitioner’s land was acquired, whereas an extent of 2800 sq.mts. of the opposite land owner of the petitioner and more particularly in Survey No.42/4, where a college building is situated, an extent of 1100 sq.meters is only acquired. From the report filed by the commissioner, it is evident that there was a curve at the petitioner’s land. However, the learned Advocate commissioner submitted in the report that he was unable to ascertain whether the said curve is intentional or not. 14. The report further mentions that the officials of the respondent authorities present at the time of inspection submitted that there are no deviations between the original plan appended to the notification dated 02.01.2019 and the original master plan of the year 2007 and that the petitioner did not place any material to state that the original plan of the year 2007 is deviated. The report further mentions that the officials of the NHAI authorities when enquired as to how the plan would be prepared and how the extents of the proposed acquisition would be ascertained from the existing R&B road, informed that they would draw a red line all along the center of the existing R&B road and from the red line, 30 meters of the land on the either side of the line would be required for the proposed NH road and this process of ascertaining acquisition of the land for proposed road followed by the technical authorities. The report further discloses that Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick India Private Limited is the technical authority that prepared the plan. 15. The report filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner makes it evident that there is a curve at the petitioner’s land and due to the said curve more extent of the petitioner’s land of 6950 sq.mts. was acquired and only a less extent of the land was acquired from the opposite land owner of the petitioner and more particularly an extent of 1100 sq.meters of land in Survey No.42/4 only was acquired, where there is a college building. However, the petitioner, who alleges that the road was formed deviating from the original plan, did not choose to place any material either before the Court or before the learned Advocate Commissioner. 16. In Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and others, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “25. However, the petitioner, who alleges that the road was formed deviating from the original plan, did not choose to place any material either before the Court or before the learned Advocate Commissioner. 16. In Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and others, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “25. The plea of the respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of the national highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the national highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the appellants are tainted by mala fides. 26. A somewhat similar question was considered in Girias Investment (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [ (2008) 7 SCC 53 ]. In that case, the acquisition of the land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was challenged on various grounds including the one that the acquisition was vitiated due to mala fides. While rejecting the plea of mala fides, the Court referred to S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India [ (1979) 2 SCC 491 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 216] , State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh [ (1980) 2 SCC 471 ] and Collector v. Raja Ram Jaiswal [ (1985) 3 SCC 1 ] and observed: (Girias Investment case [ (2008) 7 SCC 53 ] , SCC p. 63, para 14) “14. It is obvious from a reading of the pleadings quoted above that only vague allegations of mala fides have been levelled and that too without any basis. There can be two ways by which a case of mala fides can be made out; one that the action which is impugned has been taken with the specific object of damaging the interest of the party and, secondly, such action is aimed at helping some party which results in damage to the party alleging mala fides. There can be two ways by which a case of mala fides can be made out; one that the action which is impugned has been taken with the specific object of damaging the interest of the party and, secondly, such action is aimed at helping some party which results in damage to the party alleging mala fides. It would be seen that there is no allegation whatsoever in the pleadings that the case falls within the first category but an inference of mala fides has been sought to be drawn in the course of a vague pleading that the change had been made to help certain important persons who would have lost their land under the original acquisition. These allegations have been replied to in the paragraph quoted above and reveal that the land which had been denotified belonged to those who had absolutely no position or power. In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by Mr Dave have absolutely no bearing on the facts of the case.” 27. We may also refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.[ (1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165] In that case, the petitioner, who was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary and posted as Officer on Special Duty, challenged the action of the Government on various grounds including the one that the decision of the Government was vitiated due to mala fides of the Chief Minister. This Court rejected the plea of mala fides by making the following observations: (SCC pp. 41-42, paras 90-92) “90. … The petitioner set out in the petition various incidents in the course of administration where he crossed the path of the second respondent and incurred his wrath by inconvenient and uncompromising acts and notings and contended that the second respondent, therefore, nursed hostility and malus animus against the petitioner and it was for this reason and not on account of exigencies of administration that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary. The incidents referred to by the petitioner, if true, constituted gross acts of maladministration and the charge levelled against the second respondent was that because the petitioner in the course of his duties obstructed and thwarted the second respondent in these acts of maladministration, that the second respondent was annoyed with him and it was with a view to putting him out of the way and at the same time deflating him that the second respondent transferred him from the post of Chief Secretary. The transfer of the petitioner was, therefore, in mala fide exercise of power and accordingly invalid. 91. Now, when we examine this contention we must bear in mind two important considerations. In the first place, we must make it clear, despite a very strenuous argument to the contrary, that we are not called upon to investigate into acts of maladministration by the political Government headed by the second respondent. It is not within our province to embark on a far-flung inquiry into acts of commission and omission charged against the second respondent in the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry. It is one thing to say that the second respondent was guilty of misrule and another to say that he had malus animus against the petitioner which was the operative cause of the displacement of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. We are concerned only with the latter limited issue, not with the former popular issue. We cannot permit the petitioner to sidetrack the issue and escape the burden of establishing hostility and malus animus on the part of the second respondent by diverting our attention to incidents of suspicious exercise of executive power. That would be nothing short of drawing a red herring across the trail. The only question before us is whether the action taken by the respondents includes any component of mala fides; whether hostility and malus animus against the petitioner were the operational cause of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. 92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. 92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Here the petitioner, who was himself once the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a rather extraordinary and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the confidence of the people in the political custodians of power in the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high degree of proof. In this context it may be noted that top administrators are often required to do acts which affect others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These acts may lend themselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fides of their author when the full facts and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charge of unworthy conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative set up—these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach—but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. It is from this standpoint that we must assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent.” 17. In the instant case also, the petitioner except attributing mala fides, did not place any material on record to substantiate his stand. The petitioner did not also choose to place the original plan to show that the proposed road is being laid deviating the original plan. 18. In this regard, it is relevant to add that alignment of a road would be as per the technical feasibility and geometric improvements suggested by the DPR consultants. The petitioner did not also choose to place the original plan to show that the proposed road is being laid deviating the original plan. 18. In this regard, it is relevant to add that alignment of a road would be as per the technical feasibility and geometric improvements suggested by the DPR consultants. Added to the same, in the work memo submitted by the petitioner, he did not raise any specific point regarding deviations from the original plan. 19. In Union of India v. Kushala Shetty referred to supra, their Lordships further held as follows: “28. 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 the 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 the 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 has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” 20. In Chunduru Padmakumari vs. Government of India (supra 4), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “10. A Division Bench of this Court in Bluepark Seafoods (P) Ltd. V. District Collector, Krishna District ( 2011(4) ALD 494 (DB)), also held that the alignment proposed by the DPR experts has received approval of National Highways Authority because of its being the best alignment and technically most feasible. A Division Bench of this Court in Bluepark Seafoods (P) Ltd. V. District Collector, Krishna District ( 2011(4) ALD 494 (DB)), also held that the alignment proposed by the DPR experts has received approval of National Highways Authority because of its being the best alignment and technically most feasible. Further this Court also noticed the ratio of another decision of the Supreme Court in paragraph-7, which may be appropriate to extract here: “7. 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.” 21. The petitioner, except taking a bald plea that the proposed widening of road is not technically feasible and road with no bends would be safer, did not requisition the services of any private agency to obtain DPR and feasibility report. No doubt, National Highways Authority of India is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of national highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance and detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. In the absence of any positive proof placed by the petitioner, mere bald assertions are of no avail. 22. Simply because there is a curve at the petitioner’s site, it is not at all safe to conclude that the said curve was intentional intended only to acquire more extent of the petitioner’s land to save his opposite land owner. Further, the petitioner having made serious allegations regarding change of master plan and that the land acquisition process was manipulated to suit the vested interests, did not choose to place any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project was accentuated by mala fides. Further, the petitioner having made serious allegations regarding change of master plan and that the land acquisition process was manipulated to suit the vested interests, did not choose to place any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project was accentuated by mala fides. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner that the curve formed at his sight is intentional, is not sustainable. 23. At the cost of repetition it is relevant here to mention that, the alignment proposed by the DPR experts has received approval of National Highways Authority because of its being the best alignment and technically most feasible. Further, despite making an allegation that the master plan was deviated, the petitioner did not place ay material on record to substantiate the same. 24. The Courts cannot lost sight of the fact that acquiring lands for developmental activities such as creation of infrastructure of laying roads etc., involves huge expenditure of public money. Thus, the acquisitioning authority would always be duty bound to see that such an activity is carried out by incurring less expenditure as much as possible. In the instant case, the land of the petitioner sought to be acquired is an open agricultural land. According to the petitioner, the authorities, only with a view to protect the land situated on the other side of the road from being acquired, wherein a college building is located, made an intentional curve at his land. This indicates that the land which the acquisition authority wants to safeguard from acquisition process is with a college building. It is relevant here to note that there would be a considerable variation in the quantum of compensation payable for open agricultural land to that of a developed site with structures. If that was so, the process adopted by the acquisitioning authority in choosing to acquire open lands, leaving developed sites, cannot be found fault with and no motives can be attributed as sought to be projected by the petitioner. 25. In Samudrala Jhansi Lakshmi and another (supra 5), this Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Court is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision. 26. 25. In Samudrala Jhansi Lakshmi and another (supra 5), this Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Court is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision. 26. In view of the observations made above, this Court does not find any laches or lacunae in the decision making process and thus the objections raised by the petitioner are untenable and are liable to be rejected. 27. Undisputedly, in the instant case the land was acquired for formation of a Highway. The land consisted of large survey numbers and belonged to a large number of persons other than the petitioner was acquired. The record further shows that except at the subject land, the national highway was laid on either side. The subject land was of negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired. If the subject land is exempted from acquisition process, the alignment of highway which has already been formed on either side of the subject property requires considerable changes and the same would definitely burden the exchequer and the same would also cause inconvenience to the public for free passage as such, this Court finds no merits in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner seeking to exempt his land from acquisition proceedings. 28. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that award was passed for Rs.7,25,26,465/-in favour of the petitioner vide award vide Rc.B3/3339/2010, dated 28.02.2021 for the extent of 6880 sq.mts., pending disposal of this writ petition and the said amount was deposited with the 4th respondent-CALA on 01.09.2022 and thus the petitioner was benefited by an amount of Rs.6,30,66,465/-over and above the earlier awarded amount of Rs.94,60,000/-passed on 12.10.2021. The counter affidavit further discloses that the petitioner did not participate in the award enquiry though 3G(3) public notice was got published in local news papers that award enquiry would be conducted on 20.11.2019. The record discloses that this Court granted status quo on 06.08.2019. Therefore, non attendance of the petitioner at the award enquiry pursuant to the public notice issued subsequent to grant of status quo cannot be termed as a fault on the part of the petitioner. The record discloses that this Court granted status quo on 06.08.2019. Therefore, non attendance of the petitioner at the award enquiry pursuant to the public notice issued subsequent to grant of status quo cannot be termed as a fault on the part of the petitioner. In view of the same, if the petitioner feels that the awarded amount is not fair and reasonable and the same is not in proportion to the value of the land, he is at liberty to file a representation before the 4th respondent-CALA along with the documents, if any, he wishes to submit to substantiate his claim to get enhanced awarded amount for his acquired land. 29. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the compensation awarded of Rs.7,25,26,465/-vide award vide Rc.B3/3339/2010, dated 28.02.2021, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the 4th respondent-CALA, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such representation being made, the 4th respondent shall pass a reasoned order within a period of two (02) months thereafter, after considering the documents, if any, filed along with the representation and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and communicate the same to the petitioner. The interim order dated 06.08.2019 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed.