IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8919 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.05.2011 Manjit Singh Ahlawat …..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash a notification dated 20.1.2010, issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, the Act), ordering acquisition of a vast tract of land, including the land owned by the petitioner, in which, as per case of the petitioner, he has set up a petrol pump. Further challenge has been made to a notification dated 20.5.2010, issued under Section 3D(2) of the Act, finally ordering acquisition of the land, referred to above. It is apparent from the record that the land was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for building (widening/ four laning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.71A in the stretch of the land from KM 65.800 to KM 80.580 (Rohtak-Panipat Section). Civil Writ Petition No.8919 of 2011 By making reference to the site plan, it is contended that the petitioner has set up a petrol pump in the land under acquisition, after getting appropriate permissions from the competent authorities, including right of way given to him by the National Highways Authority of India, vide letter dated 24.8.2004. By making further reference to the site plan (P9), counsel suggests that by shifting the road alignment to the upper side, petrol pump of the petitioner can be saved. As per facts on record, land of the petitioner falls within the road alignment as designed by the National Highways Authority of India. We are not the experts and cannot substitute our opinion for the plans and designs prepared at the instance of the technical experts. If suggestion given by the petitioner is accepted and curve is shifted to upper side, it will be a very sharp curve and may result into causing the accidents. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2