Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. :

1. The Petitioners have raised the challenge to the notification, dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure-A) acquiring their lands for the purpose of widening the National Highway No.7 (Hyderabad-Bangalore Road).

2. Sri Reuben Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objections raised by the petitioners are not considered by the competent authority. The objections filed by the petitioners on 25.01.2010 are required to be allowed or disallowed by the competent authority by passing the order. In the instant case, some of the objections raised by the petitioners are considered and rejected not by the competent authority but by the Project Director, as is evident from the Project Director’s letter dated 21.06.2010 (Annexure-N2). Based on the said letter, the competent authority is called upon to send reply to the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel submits that the available vacant lands belonging to the Government/National Highways Authority ought to have been utilized for the road widening purpose. He submits that without exhausting the said available lands, the respondents have restored to acquiring the petitioners’ lands lying on the western side of the national highway.

4. He submits that the preliminary notification is vague and sketchy. It does not contain the particulars of the total extent of the lands and the schedule and boundaries of the lands proposed to be acquired. Sri Reuben Jacob relied on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of COMPETENT AUTHORITY vs. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 13 SCC 477 to buttress his submission that the failure to mention the schedule and boundary of the acquired lands vitiates the acquisition notifications. He read out the last portion of paragraph 5 of the said decision which is extracted hereinbelow.

“So far as the question whether the impugned notification meets the requirement of Section 3-A(1) of the Act regarding giving brief description of land is concerned, we have already shown that even though plot numbers of lands in respect of each mouza are given, different pieces of land are acquired either as whole or in part. Wherever the acquisition is of a portion of a bigger piece of land, there is no description as to which portion was being acquired. Unless it is known as to which portion was to be acquired, the petitioners would be unable to understand the impact of acquisition or to raise any objection about user of the acquired land for the purposes specified under the Act or to make a claim for compensation. It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. In our view the impugned notification fails to meet the statutory mandate. It is vague. The least that is required in such cases is that the acquisition notification should let the person whose land is sought to be acquired know what he is going to lost. The impugned notification in this case is, therefore, not in accordance with the law.”

5. He submits that as per the notification what is acquired is 2,400 sq. metres from the land at Sy.No.69; on the other hand, the markings have taken place, as if the acquisition is for 4000 sq. metres. He submits that there has been no application of mind. He submits that there is a residential house on the land at Sy.No.67. The grave of the father of the second and third petitioners is on the land at Sy.No.68. These specific objections have not been considered.

6. He submits that on the eastern side of the national highway, there is 12 metres width space; beyond the said space is the land belonging to the I.T.C. The said space of 12 metres width is not being utilized only to leave the property of the I.T.C. un-acquired.

7. Smt. Shilpa Shah, the learned counsel, representing M/s. Singhania and Partners appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that the objecti