JUDGMENT : (Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.) : The present writ appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21.09.2023, passed in W.P. No.34565 of 2022. Briefly stated, the matter facts are as under: 2. A notification, dated 18.04.2018, came to be issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways in purported exercise of powers conferred under sub-section 1 of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) declaring its intention to acquire the parcels of land mentioned in the said notification for public purpose inter alia for construction of flyovers, vehicular underpasses, Four Laning/Six Laning etc., of National Highway No.16/216A in Gundugolanu – Rajamahendravaram Section in the West Godavari District of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The total land that was identified and was intended to be used for the aforesaid public purpose was reflected as 3.5954 Hectares. 3. Since objections were called by virtue of notification, dated 18.04.2018, objections filed by the petitioners were considered but rejected. Thereafter, notification under Section 3D of the Act came to be issued on 07.12.2018 by the Central Government after having considered the report of the competent authority holding that the lands specified in the schedule be acquired for the purpose as was notified in terms of notification, dated 18.04.2018. What is important, however, is that as against 3.5954 Hectares earlier envisaged to be utilized for the public purpose in terms of the notification issued under 3A of the Act, land to an extent of only 2.1395 Hectares was sought to be utilized for the said public purpose in terms of the notification issued under Section 3D of the Act. 4. Initially, a notification, dated 18.01.2019, was issued under Section 3G(3) of the Act. However, subsequently, another notification, dated 11.10.2022, was issued under Section 3G(3) of the Act pursuant to the communication received from the Project Director, Rajamahendravaram, on account of the reduced requirement of land in view of the reduction of the width of the National Highway from 60 meters to 46 meters. 5. Section 3G of the Act envisages payment of an amount determined by the order of a competent authority where any land is acquired under the Act. 5. Section 3G of the Act envisages payment of an amount determined by the order of a competent authority where any land is acquired under the Act. If the amount so determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the said Section envisages determination of that issue by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government to which proceedings the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be applicable. 6. Being aggrieved of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, the petitioners preferred W.P. No.34565 of 2022 before the learned single Judge, which was primarily aimed at challenging notification, dated 11.10.2022, issued under Section 3G of the Act, urging that the same was unsustainable, as it notified parcels of land different from the land that were notified in its earlier notification, dated 18.01.2019, issued under Section 3G of the Act. It was also the case of the petitioners before the learned single Judge that the reduction in the extent of land sought to be acquired from the petitioners would not in any way benefit them, as the remaining extents after reduction would not serve any purpose and would become useless. 7. Learned single Judge, vide judgment and order impugned, dated 21.09.2023, partly allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to take necessary action for issuing fresh notification under Section 3G of the Act in consonance with notification issued under Section 3A of the Act and to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in accordance with law. This direction had its basis in the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that there was no specific provision under the Act, which would allow the Government/authorities to withdraw or reduce the extent of land sought to be acquired especially after the said land vested with the Central Government under Section 3D of the Act. 8. For purposes of reference, Section 3D of the Act envisages as under: “3D. 8. For purposes of reference, Section 3D of the Act envisages as under: “3D. Declaration of acquisition.—(1) Where no objection under subsection (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. …..” 9. Before us, the judgment and order impugned has been challenged both by the National Highways Authority through its Project Director vide W.A. No.135 of 2024 as also by the petitioners vide W.A.No.1001 of 2023. 10. Learned counsel for National Highways Authority urged that the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned single Judge to the extent it issued directions for ‘issuing a fresh notification under Section 3G of the Act in consonance with the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act’ was unsustainable inasmuch as, the extent of land which was mentioned in the notification under Section 3A of the Act was 3.5954 Hectares, whereas in the notification under Section 3D of the Act, the extent of land, which was finally notified for acquisition was only 2.1395 Hectares. The direction to the extent it ordered payment of compensation in terms of notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, therefore, is questioned in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Apart from this, it is stated that there was no need for the learned single Judge to order issuance of a fresh notification under Section 3G of the Act after the notification, dated 11.10.2022, had been quashed as there was in existence the notification, dated 18.01.2019. 11. Apart from this, it is stated that there was no need for the learned single Judge to order issuance of a fresh notification under Section 3G of the Act after the notification, dated 11.10.2022, had been quashed as there was in existence the notification, dated 18.01.2019. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.1001 of 2023, on the other hand, would urge that the entire process of acquisition should be held to be null and void inasmuch as the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act was issued as far back as in April, 2018, and that the prices of the said land had more than doubled over the years and if compensation was to be paid today, the petitioners would not get the required value for the land, which has since appreciated in monetary terms. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. We agree with the arguments of learned counsel for the National Highways Authority that the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the extent it directs payment of compensation in accordance with the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act is unsustainable inasmuch as the compensation, which is required to be paid is only in regard to those parcels of land which find a mention in the notification under Section 3D of the Act, which parcels of land are deemed to have vested in the National Highways Authority. 14. We are also in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the National Highways Authority that the appellants could have been directed to carry forward the proceedings from the stage of notification under Section 3G of the Act, dated 18.01.2019, which, it is stated, was in consonance with notification, dated 07.12.2018, issued under Section 3D of the Act. 15. Insofar as Writ Appeal No.1001 of 2023 is concerned, the ground taken is two fold. Firstly, that the second notification, dated 11.10.2022, under Section 3G of the Act could not have been so issued and that the authorities ought to have resorted to fresh land acquisition process by issuing a notification under Section 3A of the Act and that the land, which vests in the Central Government cannot be divested by any operation of law except by dropping the entire land acquisition proceedings. Apart from this, the ground urged is that the acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the year 2018 and that since compensation was not paid till date, the entire acquisition proceedings must be said to have been vitiated. 16. In regard to the first ground, there is no dispute at all that the subsequent notification, dated 11.10.2022, under Section 3G of the Act, could not have been issued, reducing the extent of lands sought to be acquired, and it was only in that context that the learned single Judge has partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioners. 17. However, in regard to the issue that the entire acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have been vitiated on account of non-payment of the compensation in the year 2018, we find that this ground does not seem to have been urged before the learned single Judge much less did the learned single Judge have any occasion to decide the issue as to how the acquisition process would stand vitiated on account of the delay in payment of compensation. In any case, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince us as to how the process of acquisition would get vitiated on that account. 18. Be that as it may, we allow Writ Appeal No.135 of 2024 to the limited extent the impugned judgment and order directs the compensation to be determined and paid in accordance with the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, and direct the authorities to pay the compensation in accordance with the notification issued under Section 3D of the Act to all the eligible claimants. The judgment and order of the learned single Judge shall stand modified to that extent. Writ Appeal No.1001 of 2023 is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.