This Court ordered Notice before admission on 19.7.2007 and a counter affidavit was filed.

2. This Court issued rule nisi on 11-9-2007.

3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Notification SO.No.1489(E) dated 17.10.2005 and the consequential Notification SO.No.1732(E) dated 9.10.2006 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other suitable orders.

4. The petitioners made several averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent.

5. Sri Noushad Ali, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and also the specific grounds raised attacking the impugned notification and the consequential notification as well and would maintain that the impugned notification is vague and no opportunity had been given to the petitioners to file their objections to the proposed acquisition of their lands. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the impugned notification merely mentions the survey numbers and the extents of the lands proposed to be acquired and the notification also merely mentions the type of land whether private or Government and the details which are vital for determining the compensation had not been disclosed. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the Notification SO.No.1732/(E) dated 9.10.2006 issued under Section 3D of The National Highways Act, 1956, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience, is not sustainable in Law as the same is continuation of the Notification No.SO.1489(E) dated 17.10.2005 issued under Section 3A of the said Act. The learned Counsel also pointed out that new entries had been brought with the names of the land owners, interested persons and the plot numbers and these new entries suffer from several material defects. The Counsel also would maintain that the names of the petitioners 3 and 4 were not indicated at all in both the notifications. In the case of the 5th petitioner her name was not notified in the notification dated 9.10.2006, but in stead the names of seven unconcerned persons had been notified. Further, the learned Counsel pointed out that there is no necessity of acquiring this land at all since it is faraway from the main road. The learned Counsel had explained several factual details in this regard. The learned Counsel also would submit that when the notification itself is invalid, the mere passing of the award would not alter the situation and when once this Court is satisfied that the notification is liable to be quashed, automatically the award also is liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel however would submit that if the respondents are otherwise interested, in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by acquiring the impugned notification at this stage, let the writ petitioners be properly compensated taking the relevant date to determine the compensation as the date when the possession of the land was taken by the respondents from the writ petitioners and let the claim of interest on amount of compensation so determined be decided in accordance with Law by the appropriate authority. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on Competent Authority v. Bangalore Jute Factory and others, I (2006) CLT 108 (SC).

6. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue made certain submissions virtually adopting the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in the counter-affidavit.

7. Sri S.S. Varma, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent had pointed out to the relevant portion of the records produced before this Court and had taken this Court through the different provisions of the Act and would maintain that these are notifications concerned with public interest a