Nisar Ahmad Kakru, CJ.

Notification dated 24-09-2009 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) of the Government of India, Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways published by the Collector, inviting objections from the affected persons was responded by the writ petitioner – appellant through objections which came to be rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada vide proceedings dated 04-12-2009. The said order of rejection was challenged by medium of writ petition, but of no avail to the petitioner – appellant because of its dismissal on the ground that the alignment proposed by the competent DPR consultants had received the approval of National Highway Authority because of its being the best alignment and technically most feasible. The finding so returned is questioned before us on the ground that the feasibility of alternative alignment was not considered at all by the competent authority and such omission was not addressed by the writ Court, hence this writ appeal. The controversy so raised is completely answered at paras 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition (see page 73 of the paper book), perusal whereof reveals that the objections of the appellant were considered after obtaining technical feasibility report from the technical experts which fact is substantiated by the impugned proceedings as well.

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 CentralGovernment 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.

3. Going by the record and the pleadings of the parties, coupled with the fact that it is the most feasible alignment as per the opinion of the experts, we find nothing wrong with the rejection of the objections raised by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Darius Shapur Chenai AIR 2005 SC 3520to contend t