This Court issued rule nisi on 4-12-2007 and granted interim stay for a limited period and the same was further extended for a further limited period on 27-12-2007.

2. Counter affidavit is filed by R.3.

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Gazette Notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for the purpose of convenience, in short, it would be referred to as 'the Act'), dated 29-8-2005 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 8-9-2005 is contrary to Section 3-A (1) to (3) and consequential notification issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.G1-826/04, dated 8-1-2006 published in Vaartha Telugu Daily on 13-1-2006 under Section 3(g) of the Act, insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and consequently direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Sy.No.52/2, 53, 54/2, 79, 80, 81 and 55/2 of Chinna Tekuru village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, and pass such other suitable orders.

4. Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioners had taken this Court through the Sections 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H of the Act and also had taken this Court through Section 3J of the Act and would explain that inasmuch as the particulars or details as contemplated by Section 3A of the Act had not specified in the notification, the notification itself is liable to be quashed so far it relates to the lands of the petitioners. The learned Counsel also in particular had taken this Court through the contents of para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that when a request was made by the writ petitioners under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish the information, different particulars had been furnished by the self-same authority and in view of the same, serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners and even on this ground, the notification is liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would submit that, inasmuch as, such parties are to file objections, unless the particulars are furnished, effective meaningful objections in this regard cannot be raised and hence, the object of these provisions may have to be appreciated and in the light of all the facts and circumstances since serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners because of the non-furnishing of the details or particulars in the notification impugned and also misleading particulars furnished to the petitioners while a request was made under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the notification is liable to be quashed and a fresh notification to be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Counsel for writ petitioners had pointed out that it was specified in the counter affidavit that no compensation had been taken yet. The learned Counsel relied upon several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

5. On the contrary, Sri S.S.Varma, the learned Counsel representing respondents had taken this Court through the counter affidavit filed by R.3 and would maintain that it cannot be said that the notification is devoid of particulars and in fact, the self-same notification had been called in question by certain other writ petitioners similarly placed relating to other properties and this Court recorded certain findings and had disposed of the said writ petition with suitable directions. In the light of the same, the contention that the notification to be quashed on the ground of the devoid of particulars or omission to mention particulars cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that the objections which were made within time had been considered and