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 wher