WP(C) 2685/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Deka, learned Standing C ounsel, PWD appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 5 and Mr. Soren, learned Stat e Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. The petitioners, to whom the notices under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act ) have been issued have challenged the said notice s in the present proceeding. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the petit ioners have not disputed the public interest for which the land acquisition proc eeding has been initiated under the provisions of the said Act, the respondent a uthorities could have minimize the loss of land of the petitioners by properly a ligning the expansion of the National Highway No.37 into four lanes, for which t hough representations were filed before the authority in the month of April, 201 0, the same has not been considered and disposed of. According to the learned c ounsel, on the southern side of the existing National Highway No.37, the Governm ent land is available and the authority could have align the National Highway No .37 so that there is minimum loss of the property of the petitioners and the Gov ernment can expand the said National Highway into four lanes over the Government land and thereby minimizing the compensation payable to the land owners. Ms. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, PWD referring to the averments made in the a ffidavit-in-opposition filed has submitted that realignment of National Highway No.37 is not possible and there is no other Government land available on the sou thern side of the said Highway as contended by the petitioners. It has also bee n submitted that the provisions of the Act has been resorted to keeping in view the public interest involved, i.e. the expansion of the National Highway to four lanes. The public interest involved for invocation of the provisions of the Act, i.e. f or expansion of the existing National Highway No.37 to four lanes, is not in dis pute. According to the petitioners, the Government land on the southern side of the existing National Highway is available and the authority, therefore, could have realigned the National Highway No.37 so that there is minimum loss of the p roperty belonging to the private individual. The said assertion, however, has b een disputed by the respondents in the affidavit filed contending inter alia tha t there is no available Government land on the southern side and the realignment of the National Highway No.37 is not possible. The scope of interference of the acquisition proceeding initiated under the prov isions of the Act by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 22 6 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The public interest for initiat ion of the land acquisition proceeding has not been disputed. No infraction of the provisions of the Act could also be pointed out by the petitioners. The onl y ground, as has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Government by realigning the National Highway No.37 could have minimized the loss of the property of the private individual, like the petitioners. As notic ed above, the possibility of the realignment of the National Highway No.37 has b een denied by the respondents and it has also been contended that there is no av ailable Government land on the southern side of the said Highway. It is for th e authority to decide that aspect of the matter, which cannot be decided by a wr it Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the present petition to inte rfere with the notice issued under Section 9(1) of the Act and hence the writ pe tition is dismissed. No cost.