THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2536 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners own land in survey No.97/1 of Gosala Village, Penamaluru Mandal and 336/2 of Edupuganuru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. Through a notification, dated 24.09.2009, issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), respondents 1 and 2 proposed to acquire the land for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.9. The petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17765 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of, on 11.08.2010, directing respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry before publishing declaration under Section 3-D of the Act. The petitioners are permitted to submit their objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioners contend that they were furnished with the copy of the order of the writ petition on 15.09.2010. Three days thereafter, they submitted the objections. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer, rejected the objections through endorsement, dated 29.09.2010, on the ground that they were filed beyond the time stipulated by this Court. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Srinivasa Varma, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners approached this Court on an earlier occasion challenging the notification issued under Section 3-A of the Act. An enquiry, similar to the one under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was to be held. The petitioners did not avail the opportunity of filing objections in the enquiry. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 11.08.2010, permitting the petitioners to submit their objections in the enquiry. The petitioners submitted their objections on 22.09.2010. The justification pleaded for the delay is that the copy of the order in W.P.No.17765 of 2010 was furnished to them on 15.09.2010. The necessity to enclose a copy of the order in the writ petition would have existed, in case this Court has set aside any proceedings or directed the authorities to undertake any specific exercise. The petitioners were directed to avail the opportunity in the enquiry. The project was proceeding in a speedy manner. The petitioners could have submitted their objections, if necessary by referring to the orders passed by this Court. Though the petitioners are technically correct, when they say that the objections were filed within two weeks from the date on which the copy of the order in W.P.No.17765 of 2010 was furnished, their conduct vis-à-vis the respondents cannot be proved. Soon after filing this writ petition, the petitioners have submitted their claim under Section 3-G of the Act. Obviously, a notification under Section 3-D of the Act was published. The petitioners did not challenge the notification under Section 3-D of the Act. On the other hand, they have submitted their claim during the pendency of the writ petition. No serious illegality or irregularity is pointed out. The land acquired from the petitioners is a small piece in the alignment of the road. The alignment cannot be changed to suit the convenience of the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14.02.2011. GJ