HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.23893 of 2010 O R D E R: By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the Notification issued by the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, dated 27-11-2009 as well as the final Notification issued under Section 3-D, dated 23-03-2010 proposing to acquire affected land forming part of the petitioner’s factory premises for the purpose of four laning National Highway in National Highway No.202 sititauted from K.M.30 to K.M.54, Bhongir Revenue Division, Nalgonda District. 2. The said notification is challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner-industry is recognized as a public utility industry by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as a textile industry, serving the needs of agriculturists. A Notification of the State Government under G.O.Rt.No.980 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.1) Department, dated 22-06-2009, is relied upon to show that it is a public utility service industry. The affected frontage in the proposed National Highway Project is said to be 7,688.92 square meters and petitioners state that the various structures of the industry which include the electrical sub-station, compound wall, canteen, security room, cycle shed, bore well and staff quarters are materially affected and the estimated costs of the relocating and rebuilding these structures is stated to be Rs.2.30 crores. It is also alleged that on the backside of the unit, there is a stretch of huge hillock and as such expansion on that side is also not possible for the purpose of relocation. The primary contention raised in the writ petition and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the respondents could realign the proposed national Highway to some extent on the opposite side where there is a vacant land available, the petitioners’ factory structures could be substantially saved. It is also alleged that the petitioners raised objections on these aspects when the Notification under Section 3A was published, but the said objections were not considered properly and on contrary, the objections were rejected on 05-02-2010 resulting in 3-D Notification, dated 23-03-2010 followed by Notification for award enquiry under Section 3G, dated 28-05-2010. The petitioners state that on account of the non-consideration of the petitioners’ objections and the non- furnishing reasons therefor, the principles of natural justice are violated and consequently seek quashing of Notifications issued under Sections 3-D as well as 3-G. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit stating that after the publication of Notification, the objections of the petitioners were received, on which, the Revenue Divisional Officer/competent authority, appointed under the National Highway Act, conducted meeting on the objections petitions on 01-02-2010, in his office, and by a detailed order, has disallowed the objections on 05-02-2010. So far as the structures of the petitioners likely to be effected are concerned, the counter affidavit states that to the extent of sub-station, the same can be shifted by the Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Bhongir and for other structures, appropriate compensation can be claimed by the petitioners. To the extent of alignment proposed, it was stated that the said alignment was approved by the National Highways in due consultation with DPR Consultant and already required land has been acquired in accordance with the said alignment fixed, and as such, it is not possible to change the alignment in view of the technical reasons, on account of the techno feasibility studies already made. It is also alleged in the counter that after issuing 3-G Notification for awarding compensation, the petitioners Chairman and Managing Director, through his letter dated 18-06-2010, has sought adequate compensation for the effected land and his representative, who attended the award enquiry, has submitted the documents in support of the claim for compensation and while the award is at the final stage, the present writ petition has been filed after participating in the award enquiry. 4. The competent authority and the Revenue Divisional Officer also filed a separate counter reiterating that National Highway authority has approved the alignment, which cannot be changed to suit the petitioners’ requirements and that the demarcated land is peg marked by the National Highway authorities and the structures, if any fall within the alignment, could be appropriately compensated. He also reiterating that the representative of the petitioners-company, participated in the award enquiry, and has sought adequate compensation for the structures. It further shows that the award, in fact, was passed in proceedings No.B/1690/2008, dated 28-08-2010 and the value of the land and the structures of the petitioners were fixed separately and the details thereof are given in the counter affidavit quantifying the total amount awarded to the petitioners at 1,08,03,302/- , while the petitioners claim is for Rs.1,90,00,000/- per acre. 5. The present writ petition is filed on 24-09-2010, which is almost a month after the award is passed. So far as change of alignment sought for by the petitioners is concerned, the similar contention, raised with regard to the another industry, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Bluepark Seafoods (P) Ltd., Bhimavaram, West Godavari District Vs. District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others[1], to which I am also a party, wherein it has been held: “2. It also emerges from the stand disclosed by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the widening of road is proposed for design speed of 100 KMs per hour and the deviation of alignment sought by the petitioner would have an adverse impact on the designed speed. Contention is supported by record as well, and substantiates the stand of the respondents that excepting a part of the premises of the appellant’s factory there is vacant land on both the sides of the road stretching to a length of 2 KMs. Record produced by the respondents shows that objections filed by the appellant, dated 09-11-2009 were considered by the competent authority and his proceedings RC.G.88/07, dated 13-11-2009 addressed to the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India refers to objections filed by the appellant with a request to consider to run the alignment straight from 27.8 KMs to 35.2 KMs instead of existing proposal. The competent authority therefore sought remarks/technical opinion on the said proposal to enable it to dispose of the objections. Under the communication of National Highways Authorities in reference NHAI/PIV(BOT)/2009-10/575, dated 04-12-2009 detail technical remarks were sent with respect to each of the objections including the appellant’s objections and so far as the appellant is concerned, it was mentioned as follows: “Objection does not merit any consideration for the change of alignment as the finalized alignment is the best alignment proposed by DPR consultant and finalized by the National Highway Authorities, New Delhi.” Based on the said technical opinion, the competent authority has disposed of the objections of all the objectors, including that of the appellant under the impugned order. Subsequently, Section 3D notification was issued and published in Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part – II, dated 25-01-2010 after considering the report of the competent authority submitted to the Central Government and on satisfaction of the Central Government that the land specified in the schedule should be acquired for the aforesaid purpose and accordingly, the acquired land is declared to vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.” 6. In the counter affidavit, filed in the present case also, the respondents have categorically stated that the alignment has been fixed as per the D.P.R. consultant and finalized by the National Highways authorities and even if any structure of the petitioners factory is affected in view of larger public interest, the notifications cannot be interfered with. 7. The other important aspect which also needs to be taken into consideration is that the award in the present case was passed on 28-08-2010, but this writ petition questioning the acquisition was filed on 24-09-2010. Present writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings is therefore, clearly not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others[2], which held that after an award is passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging acquisition notice or against any proceedings thereunder. In that view of the matter and following the above decision, the objections to the acquisition after passing of the award are even otherwise not permissible. 8. Thirdly, the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to their properties, either partly or otherwise, are affected by the implementation of the National Highway Projects. The private interest, which may suffer on account of such developmental work, has to be adequately compensated and it is well settled that the private interest must yield to the larger public interest. 9. In that view of the matter also, the petitioners’ contentions cannot be accepted and the acquisition proceedings cannot be invalidated, particularly, when the award was passed as early as on 28-08-2010. 10. During the initial hearing of this writ petition, this Court had passed series of directions, as apparently, it was projected before this Court that six-lane road is being undertaken by the National Highways authorities and keeping in view of the factual location, this Court was of the view that six-lane road at the place where petitioners factory is situated may not be necessary. Now however, the counter affidavit clarifies that it is only four-lane road and the service road, at the relevant location, will have to be provided by the National Highway, which is undertaken by the respondents. 11. In view of these factual circumstances and the matters discussed as above, the writ petition is clearly devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners are free to agitate and seek their remedies, if according to them, the compensation as awarded is inadequate and not just. The National Highways Act provides for adequate Forum for adjudication of the quantum of compensation and that aspect is admittedly beyond the scope of this writ petition. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ 26-08-2011 kvr [1] 2011 (4) A.D 494 (db) [2] AIR 2000 S.C. 671