ORDER : (Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.) : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seeking to acquire petitioners property admeasuring 4,237 50 Sq mts in Survey No 455/3, 455/3B1, 455/3B2, 455/2C of Bharathi Nagar Gunadala Vijayawada NTR District bearing municipal H.No.54-15-13, 54-15-13/1, 54-15-13/2 without following the procedure contemplated under Section 3A to 3G of The National Highways Act 1956 in its true spirit as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the Notification S.0.3877E dated 17.08.2022 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Notification S.0.92E dated 06.01.2023 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of 5433 sq.yds in Sy.No.455/3, 455/3-B1, 455/3-B2, 455/2C, Bharathi Nagar, Gunadala, Vijayawada. Initially, an extent of 323 sq.mts was acquired by the 4th respondent for the purpose of road widening/improvement of Bharati Nagar main road and 1st cross road in the year 2014. Subsequently, in the remaining extent of land i.e. 4237.50 sq.mts, the petitioner has built a 5 start international hotel in the name of Novotel Vijayawada Varun. 3. The respondents sought to acquire land for road widening, maintenance, management and operation of NH-16 in the stretch of land from Km.1095.6 to KM 1098.5 as part of 4 laning of Vijayawada- Machilipatnam section of NH-65. A Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated 17.08.2022 was issued by the first respondent notifying the details of land to be acquired. Since no objections were received against the said proposal, a declaration under Section 3(D) of the Act was also issued and thereafter, a public notice under Section 3G of the Act was issued on 02.03.2023, proposing to acquire 0.000632 hectares in Sy.No.455/3B1 and 0.004844 hectares in Sy.No.455/2C of the petitioner’s land for the said purpose. Since no objections were received against the said proposal, a declaration under Section 3(D) of the Act was also issued and thereafter, a public notice under Section 3G of the Act was issued on 02.03.2023, proposing to acquire 0.000632 hectares in Sy.No.455/3B1 and 0.004844 hectares in Sy.No.455/2C of the petitioner’s land for the said purpose. The petitioner made a representation dated 13.03.2023 to Respondent No.5/Vijayawada Municipal Corporation raising an objection that the subject land cannot be relinquished for the purpose of land acquisition, as the hotel building structure is standing on columns built over pile caps, group piles and contiguous piles having a gap of 50 MM to 75 MM between them, since the contiguous piles firmly act as structural members against which all the basement Post Tensioned slabs are structurally connected. The said representation was forwarded to Respondent No.3 to take necessary action. But, Respondent No.3 issued mechanical reply stating that this Court passed orders in W.A.No.401 of 2020 & batch directing NHAI to form service road in terms of Guideline No.2.12.2.1 of Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014, through public private partnership and further stated that only 54.76 sq.mts of land would be acquired from the petitioner. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the notification/publication did not contain the details of the land owner, description of the property being affected, which are mandatory prescriptions for issuance of notification. If the respondents had given the ownership details, described the exact area of land in accordance with Section 3A of the Act, the petitioner would have filed his objections within the stipulated period under the Act, as such, it is contended that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner by not sufficiently describing the land to be acquired in respect of petitioner’s property in the notification. 5. It is contended that, as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the substance of the notification has to be published in two local newspapers, one of which should be in a vernacular language. The objective of the said section is to notify the affected party of such land acquisition, hence such public notice has to be published in such newspapers which are largely circulated across the said area. The objective of the said section is to notify the affected party of such land acquisition, hence such public notice has to be published in such newspapers which are largely circulated across the said area. But, the respondents with a malafide intention have got published the same in newspapers having low daily circulation, to enable the respondents to proceed with acquisition without there being any objections from the land owners, as the same would go unnoticed by the concerned parties. It is contended that, raising objections to the notification published under Section 3A of the Act is a right provided under Section 3C of the Act and such opportunity of hearing is taken away from the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. 6. Respondent No.3 – General Manager & Project Director, National Highways Authority of India filed counter affidavit. It is submitted that, laying of service road has commenced on the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and Respondent No.3 has followed the procedure scrupulously in publishing the notification under Section 3A vide Gazette of India issue S.O.No.3877(E) and its E.O.No.3703, dated 17.08.2022 and the substance of 3A(1) Notification published in two local newspapers requested the interested persons to raise any objections for the use of said land within 21 days from the date of the publication of 3A Notification. No objections have been received. Further, the Notification u/s.3D(1) of NH Act, 1956 was published in the Gazette of India vide Notification bearing S.O.No.92(?), dated 06.01.2023 and on the publication of the declaration under sub- section(2), the land shall vest absolutely in the Government of India free from all encumbrances. Later the CALA & Sub-Collector, Vijayawada (Respondent No.4) issued the notice under Section 3E for possession handing of the land after duly depositing the compensations. The present writ petition is filed in the private interest of the petitioner against the larger public interest. It is submitted that, laying of service roads is mandatory and Respondent No.3 is laying the same as per the technical guidelines. The petitioner might have left space for common areas for such a big building and the road widening could cut the common areas of the hotel building and hence, much damage may not be caused. 7. It is submitted that, laying of service roads is mandatory and Respondent No.3 is laying the same as per the technical guidelines. The petitioner might have left space for common areas for such a big building and the road widening could cut the common areas of the hotel building and hence, much damage may not be caused. 7. Respondent No.4 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada filed counter, admitting that, 3-A Notification was issued to acquire the land and the same was published in two daily newspapers i.e., in Prajasakthi (Telugu news paper) and The Times of India on 27.08.2022 inviting objections if any within 21 days from the date of the publication before the Competent Authority & Sub-Collector, Vijayawada. As no objections have been received within the time 3-D Notification was also issued and thereafter 3G Notification. Respondent No.4 also admitted that the acquisition has been taken up as per the Hon'ble High Court Orders in Writ Petition No. 19887 of 2019, dated 31.12.2019 & W.A.No.401 of 2020 duly following the NHAI, Act 1956 and as per Guideline No. 2.12.2.1 of manual of specifications and standards. As per IRC SP:84-2019 manual of specifications and standards guidelines No.2.12.2.1 for laying service road in open country with isolated built up area, the service road shall have 7 m wide carriageway and 1.5 m wide earthen shoulder on either side. In built up area, the service road shall have 7.5 m wide carriageway (including kerb shyness of 0.25 m on either side) with raised footpath/separator on either side. Duly following the said rules the laying of service road has commended by the NHAI Authorities and as Land Acquisition Officer we have followed the procedure scrupulously in publishing the notifications under Section 3A and acquired the land under Section 3D of the NHAI Act. 8. Respondent No.4 further submitted that, 3A Notification was published in two daily newspapers i.e. Prajasakthi (Telugu) and Times of India (English) on 27.08.2022 inviting objections if any from the landholders/persons interested therein and called upon to surrender and deliver the possession of the subject land. It is also submitted that, acquisition was taken up as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.19887 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019 & W.A.No.401 of 2020 duly following NHAI Act, 1956 and passed Award. It is also submitted that, acquisition was taken up as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.19887 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019 & W.A.No.401 of 2020 duly following NHAI Act, 1956 and passed Award. The land of an extent of 874.28 sq.mts excluding the extent of Novotel was handed over on 30.07.2023 by the Tahsildar, Vijaywada East Mandal to the Manager (Tech) NHAI, PIU, Vijayawada. Finally, it is submitted that the writ petition is filed in the private interest of the petitioner against the larger public interest and the laying of service road is pending due to court order. 9. No counter affidavits are filed by Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 to 9. 10. Respondent No.10 did not file counter affidavit, but learned counsel for the Respondent No.10 placed on record written arguments submitted by Respondent No.10, which are as follows: i. The respondent – National Highways Authority of India proposed to acquire the land by issuing Notification under Section 3(A) and declaration under Section 3(D) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and published Notification dated 17.08.2022 proposing to acquire various extent of the land. After following necessary procedure, the respondent – NHAI intended to acquire the land for formation of service road in terms of Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways Through Public Private Partnership (IRC:SP:84-2014). ii. The main contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent – NHAI failed to follow the procedure and did not communicate any of the notices to the writ petitioner. But, the contention is false on the face of the record, as the Manager of the petitioner attended to all the enquiries before the competent authority and signed in the relevant records. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that, no opportunity was afforded to them to challenge the proposed acquisition is false. On that ground, the Notification cannot be setaside. iii. The second contention is that, as per the direction issued in W.P.No.19887 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P(PIL).No.240 of 2020 and W.A.Nos.401 of 2020 & 210 of 2021 dated 31.08.2021. On that ground, the Notification cannot be setaside. iii. The second contention is that, as per the direction issued in W.P.No.19887 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P(PIL).No.240 of 2020 and W.A.Nos.401 of 2020 & 210 of 2021 dated 31.08.2021. Though the W.A.Nos.401 of 2020 & 210 of 2021 were preferred, both by the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, NHAI, Vijayawada, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, allowed W.A.No.210 of 2021 in part with a direction to Respondent Nos.3 & 5 therein to form service road in respect of the Western side/2nd flyover in terms of guideline No.2.12.2.1 of Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways Through Public Private Partnership (IRC:SP:84-2014) iv. Taking advantage of these directions issued by the learned single Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is contending that, if Guideline No.2.12.2.1 is followed, they have no objection and the main building will not be affected. The direction was sought for formation of service road by Yalamanchi Srinivasa Rao and others who are the neighbours of the petitioner’s Hotel, as they have no capacity to pass on the road. Even otherwise, as per the terms of Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways Through Public Private Partnership (IRC:SP:84-2014), it is the obligation of the National Highways Authority of India to form service road as per Guideline No.2.12.2. v. The National Highways Authority of India proposed to form service road of 7 mtrs wide carriage way and 1.5 m wide earthen shoulder on either side, along with appurtenant facilities like electricity etc and proposed to acquire the land in front of the petitioner – Hotel and other buildings in the same lane. Only to facilitate the public to pass through the road for their ingress and egress and strictly in terms of standard specifications. vi. If the road is formed as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court, it is difficult for movement of two vehicles at a time on the road and it is difficult for the pedestrians to pass through the service road, thereby causes serious inconvenience to the pedestrians. vii. vi. If the road is formed as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court, it is difficult for movement of two vehicles at a time on the road and it is difficult for the pedestrians to pass through the service road, thereby causes serious inconvenience to the pedestrians. vii. The further case of the respondents is that, NHAI is bound to comply with the terms and conditions of the Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways Through Public Private Partnership (IRC:SP:84-2014), more particularly, Guideline No.2.12.2.1. If such service road is provided with all formalities as per the terms of Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways Through Public Private Partnership (IRC:SP:84-2014), it is convenient for the public to pass through the roads. viii. The petitioner is the owner of the building where they are running Hotel by name M/s. Varun Hospitality Private Limited and it proposed to acquire the land, the petitioner is at best entitled to claim compensation both for the land and for the building if any damaged and cannot resist acquisition of the property by filing writ petition when the respondent – NHAI followed the procedure strictly. ix. In the present case, the petitioner did not complain any specific violation of the procedure except failure to afford an opportunity at every stage of the proceedings which is a blatant lie on the face of the record, as the Manager of the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority at every stage and signed on the records. Therefore, in the circumstances, stated above, the petitioner has no right to question acquisition of subject land and at best, they may question the procedure to be followed by respondents complaining that it is not strictly in accordance with NHAI Act. But, no such compliance of the procedure is pleaded in the entire writ petition and except the allegation that they did not afford an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. But, no such compliance of the procedure is pleaded in the entire writ petition and except the allegation that they did not afford an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. x. The NHAI addressed letter dated 03.04.2023 to the CALA & Sub- Collector, Vijayawada, marking a copy to the petitioner – M/s. Varun Hospitality Pvt Ltd (Hotel Novotol), Vijayawada, informing that, accordingly proposal for acquiring additional lands for formation of 7.5 m service road (7.5 m wide service road + 1.5m Drain + 0.5m separator + 0.5m for accommodating existing electrical utilities) was submitted to the Competent Authority of NHAI and the proposal was accepted by NHAI/MORTH for construction of service roads along both approach portions of Eastern side flyover in compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s order. xi. From the communication dated 03.04.2023 sent to the CALA & Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, marking a copy to the writ petitioner, the NHAI proposed to acquire additional lands for formation of 7.5 m service road (7.5 m wide service road + 1.5m Drain + 0.5m separator + 0.5m for accommodating existing electrical utilities) and it is only compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Court in the writ petition and writ appeals referred above. 11. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contentions, drawn the attention of this Court to Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014, Guideline No.2.12.2.1 is relevant which deals with formation of service roads etc, on the basis of this guideline, requested to direct respondents. 12. Whereas learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India, reiterated the contentions urged in the counter affidavit and requested to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels for the official and unofficial respondents, perused the material available on record. 14. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, originally, this writ petition is filed against Respondent Nos.1 to 5/official respondents, but later, vide order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 dated 02.07.2024, Respondent Nos.6 to 10 who are the abutting property holders of the petitioner, were impleaded as party respondents. 15. 14. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, originally, this writ petition is filed against Respondent Nos.1 to 5/official respondents, but later, vide order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 dated 02.07.2024, Respondent Nos.6 to 10 who are the abutting property holders of the petitioner, were impleaded as party respondents. 15. It appears that, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein issued Notification dated 02.03.2023 in compliance of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.19887 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019, wherein, in Sl.Nos. 30 & 34, an extent of 0.004844 Hectare in Sy.No.455/2C and 0.000632 Hectare in Sy.No.455/3B1 was notified in the name of the petitioner. As per the notification, the description of the property of the petitioner to be acquired is only the compound wall and not indicated any other structure. Being a sovereign authority, once notified and specified that extent and nature of structure, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 cannot go beyond the compound wall and more than the extent of and notified. It is observed that, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 time and again reiterated that the respondents with utmost care and caution marked the proposed portion for acquisition i.e. to the extent of compound wall of the petitioner, but not to the extent of filing pillars of the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner. But, it is true that if it is more than the marked area, it may affect the main structure of the entire building, as contended by the petitioner and if that is so, either a fresh notification or corrigendum is necessitated for obtaining fresh compensation. 16. Further, in Paragraph No.8 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner had categorically admitted that, in built up area, the service road shall have 7.5 m wide carriageway (including kerb shyness of 0.25 m on either side) with raised footpath/separator on either side and also expressed readiness and willingness to cooperate for service road widening to a required total width of 7.50 m in all, as per the Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014 and guidelines applicable to slip road and in built up areas. For more understanding, Guideline No.2.12.2.1 is extracted hereunder: “In open country with isolated built up area, the service road shall have 7 meters wide carriage way and 1.5 meters wide earthen shoulder on either side. For more understanding, Guideline No.2.12.2.1 is extracted hereunder: “In open country with isolated built up area, the service road shall have 7 meters wide carriage way and 1.5 meters wide earthen shoulder on either side. In built up area, the service road shall have 7.5 meters wide carriage way (including kerb shyness of 0.25 meters on either side) with raised footpath/separator on either side as given para 2.15 and as shown in Fig.2.6. Any deviations to the above provisions shall be specified in schedule „D? of the Concession Agreement. Wherever required provision for Parking Bays of length of 20 meters and width of 3 meters may be made along the service road and the same shall be specified in Schedule ‘B’ of Concession Agreement”. 17. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, non-observation of Act, 1956 by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and other the official respondents are trying to implement to lay service road as per Guideline No.2.12.2.1 of the Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014 as if it is in open country area other than the built up area is contrary to the second limb of Guideline No.2.12.2.1 i.e 7.5 meters wide carriage way including kerb shyness of 0.25 m on either side is a merit submission and also in accordance with guidelines as extracted supra. Therefore, the respondents shall adhere to the scheme of National Highways Act, 1956, and the Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014, the service road in built up area should be 7.5 meters only. 18. Publication of notification in the vernacular language in Prajasakthi newspaper is not compliance. Upon reviewing the scheme outlined under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956, it is clear that the petitioner cannot obstruct the actions of Respondents Nos. 6 to 10 regarding the formation of the subject service road based on mere apprehensions. Should any of the petitioner’s structures be affected according to the scheme, compensation will be provided accordingly. The petitioner is therefore entitled to compensation for both the land and any structures that may be damaged. However, in the present case, the official respondents, specifically Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, have explicitly confirmed and undertakes that they would proceed in line with the acquisition notice dated 02.03.2023 only. The petitioner is therefore entitled to compensation for both the land and any structures that may be damaged. However, in the present case, the official respondents, specifically Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, have explicitly confirmed and undertakes that they would proceed in line with the acquisition notice dated 02.03.2023 only. This notice pertains to the properties listed as Sl. Nos. 30 and 34, relates to the petitioner specifying that to the extent of compound wall only will be affected. Consequently, the proposed impact on the petitioner’s property is limited to the extent of compound wall and does not extend beyond that. More so, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents once again reiterated the specific affirmation /promise of the respondents time and again before this Court while he was arguing the matter. 19. In view of the clear and categorical assurances given by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 before this Court, being sovereign authority Respondent Nos.2 to 4 cannot go beyond the compound wall, which is notified and should adhere to Guideline 2.12.2.1, as per the Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014 at built up area and also as directed by this Court in W.P.No.19887 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019. 20. Further, it is also observed that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have reaffirmed and classified that the proposed service road is located in a built-up area, it should be constructed to a width of only 7.5 meters including all other requirements. They also emphasized that they adhered meticulously to the procedures outlined in the acquisition notification, including the publication of the Notification under Section 3(A) and the land acquisition process under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion and pursuant to the clear and categorical admission/assurances of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. This Court is of the considered view that Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are hereby directed to proceed further in laying of service road strictly as per Guideline No.2.12.2.1 of the Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014, at built up area. Apart from that the respondents shall consider all the procedure as envisaged under the provisions of NHAI Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder. Apart from that the respondents shall consider all the procedure as envisaged under the provisions of NHAI Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder. The entire exercise of laying service road shall be completed as early as possible. 22. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.