JUDGMENT : (Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.) The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.31332 of 2023. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: The petitioner is a dealer appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation and is running a petrol station over a piece of land measuring 6,950 sft.. An agreement came to be executed between the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the Executive Engineer, the Department of Irrigation, whereby land measuring 6,250 sft falling under Sy.No.95 in Nellore Town was permitted to be used by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ‘on temporary occupation basis for a period of 5 years commencing from 01.07.1951 subject to terms and conditions’. 3. A piece of land measuring 6,250 sft came to be allotted to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited by the Department of Irrigation over which the petitioner claimed that he was running a petrol station since 1964. The period of lease, it is stated, was being extended from time to time in favour of Indian Oil Corporation. The Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways appears to have sanctioned work for construction of two-lane Major Bridge across Penna River at 739.234 Km on NH-67 including approaches parallel to existing 2 lane bridge for which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, was appointed as the Competent Authority for land acquisition. 4. A notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, was published in the Gazette on 15.02.2022 calling for objections from interested persons. Subsequently, a notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956, was published on 08.09.2022 and whereafter a notification under Section 3(G)(3) of the Act, 1956, also came to be published on 01.10.2022. Reference to the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, would make it clear that among others land falling under Sy.No.95, 96/1, 96/2 and 97/1C was sought to be acquired with or without structures. 5. As per the said notification under Section 3-A of the Act, the following was the classification of the land falling under Sy.No.95, 96/1 & 96/2 & 97/1C: State: ANDHRA PRADESH, District: SPS Nellore Sl. No. Survey / Plot No. Type of Land Nature of Land Area (in Local Unit) Area (in Hectares) Taluk: Nellore Urban Village: Nellore Bit-1 5. 95 Government (Surveypalli Canal) Surveypalli Canal 0.6(Acre) 0.2428167 6. No. Survey / Plot No. Type of Land Nature of Land Area (in Local Unit) Area (in Hectares) Taluk: Nellore Urban Village: Nellore Bit-1 5. 95 Government (Surveypalli Canal) Surveypalli Canal 0.6(Acre) 0.2428167 6. 96/1 Government (Rail Road) Rail Road 0.45(Acre) 0.1821125 7. 96/2 Government (Road) Road 0.05(Acre) 0.0202347 8. 97/1C Government (Rail Road) Rail Road 0.75(Acre) 0.3035208 6. The admitted case of the parties is that no objections were filed by the petitioner to the notification under Section 3A and further did not participate in the proceedings under Section 3D and 3G. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner did not submit the objections to the notification under Section-A of the Act, 1956, which was followed by the declaration under Section 3D of the Act, 1956, and the notification under Section 3(G)(3) of the Act, 1956. In that background, communication dated 08.11.2023 came to be issued by RDO, Nellore, to the Senior Divisional Manager of the I.O.C.L. directing the I.O.C.L. to stop the fuel supply immediately to I.O.C.L. petrol bunk as it was falling on the proposed National Highway project site and was causing hindrance to the execution of the work. 7. It was emphasized that the petrol bunk was required to be removed immediately failing which I.O.C.L. stood informed that the R.D.O., Nellore, would be compelled to initiate action under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Another communication dated 28.11.2023 came to be issued by R.D.O., Nellore, to Nagavani, a partner in the petitioner firm, reiterating the requirement of the removal of the petrol bunk forthwith. It is not out of place to mention that the R.D.O., Nellore, in his communication had highlighted the fact that the location where petrol bunk was situated had been declared as a black spot by the District Road Safety Committee (DRSC) chaired by the District Collector which committee was formed based on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on Road Safety (SCORS). It was highlighted that the DRSC had directed the officers concerned to remove the petrol bunk from that location. It was highlighted that the DRSC had directed the officers concerned to remove the petrol bunk from that location. It is these two communications which form the basis of a challenge by the petitioner before a single Bench of this Court in which the petitioner challenged the said communications on the ground that the petrol bunk did not in fact cause any kind of obstruction or interruption to the proposed construction of the National Highway - 67. 8. In the previous round of litigation initiated by the petitioner, it can be seen that writ petition bearing No.6026 of 2023 came to be filed in which the petitioner had challenged the communication dated 22.02.2023 issued by the Executive Engineer, Department of Roads &Buildings and Highway Administrator asking for removal of the petrol bunk in question. This petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conduct a survey to demarcate the road margin in Sy.No.95 to an extent of 6950 sft, which survey was to be conducted in the presence of the petitioner or their representatives. It was also held that if upon survey it was found that the petitioner had encroached the road margin, it would be open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law and further that till such time the survey was completed, the respondents would not interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the subject land without due process of law. 9. In the writ petition bearing No.31332 of 2023, the emphasis of the petitioner was that despite directions issued in W.P.No.6026 of 2023, neither the report of the survey even when conducted on 16.06.2023 had been furnished to the petitioner nor were any objections called for. In that regard and further that instead of furnishing the said survey report, the R.D.O., Nellore, by virtue of the impugned proceedings, dated 08.11.2023, had proceeded to direct the I.O.C.L. authorities not to supply the fuel to the petitioner’s filling station and further demanded its removal from the spot. 10. In the response filed by the official respondents, it is stated that land under Sy.No.95 of Nellore bit-1 Village to an extent of 6950 sft belong to the Irrigation Department which had since issued notices to the writ petitioner to vacate the premises as it had failed to pay the rent on agreed terms from the past 15 years. 10. In the response filed by the official respondents, it is stated that land under Sy.No.95 of Nellore bit-1 Village to an extent of 6950 sft belong to the Irrigation Department which had since issued notices to the writ petitioner to vacate the premises as it had failed to pay the rent on agreed terms from the past 15 years. It is further the stand of the official respondents that since the project in question was being undertaken for a public purpose, the superintending Engineer of the Department of Irrigation, Nellore Circle, has issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 18.04.2023 for inclusion of the subject land measuring fifty eight cents in Sy.No.95/2 for acquisition. It is further stand of the official respondents that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question since 2000 unauthorizedly. It is also stated that there is another petrol bunk of M/s. Bharath Petroleum which had since been got vacated for purposes of the said project. 11. In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, the learned Single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order, dated 12.12.2023, dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner having not objected to the notification under Section 3-A of the Act, 1956, which was followed by a Declaration under Section 3(d) of the Act, the only remedy which was available to the petitioner would be to participate in the Award Enquiry for claiming compensation or damages for the land so acquired if at all the petitioner was entitled to claim such a compensation. It was further held that there was no obligation in law upon the concerned authorities to serve individual notices, including the petitioner in regard to the acquisition proceedings as the same was not envisaged under the procedure prescribed in terms of the Act, 1956. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions which had earlier been advanced before the learned Single Judge and sought to emphasize that the survey report if served upon the petitioner would have enabled the petitioner to convince the authorities firstly that there was no encroachment by the petitioner over any Government land and that there would be no hindrance to the project being undertaken by the National Highway Authority as it would not come within the alignment of road/bridge which was proposed to be constructed. However, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.6, a specific plea had been taken that a copy of the survey report was furnished to the petitioner. 13. In any case, in our opinion, furnishing the survey report, would not be fatal to the acquisition proceedings as the land which was permitted to be used by the I.O.C.L. measuring 6,250 sft according to the schedule attached to the agreement fell only in Sy.No.95, all of which including Sy.Nos.96 and 97 are sought to be acquired. According to the survey report and the sketch prepared thereupon, the petrol bunk is constructed in Sy.No.95/1 to the extent of 0.01 cents which is canal poramboke and Sy.No.95/2 to the extent of 0.07 cents. Even, Sy.Nos.96 and 97 are registered as railway poramboke land. It thus appears to us to be clear that the land in question is required for a public purpose in terms of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act, 1956, for which it becomes necessary that the petrol bunk which stands on Sy.No.95 be removed as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 14. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.