JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant Union of India and another against the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.3758/2008 between Veerappa and Union of India and Another.

2. The facts of the case reveal that for the purpose of widening the existing Highway to four lane from km 28.200 to km 110.000 on National Highway – 48 (Nelamangala – Hassan Section), the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1956), issued a notification dated 17.11.2006 declaring its intention to acquire the lands mentioned in the schedule therein to ensure availability of right of way of 60 metres. The aforesaid notification was issued after carrying out proper survey and after obtaining necessary technical advice from the experts on the subject.

3. The substance of the notification was published in the Times of India on 22.12.2006 and in Kannada Prabha again on 21.12.2006 and the respondent before this Court (petitioner) filed his objections under Section 3-C of the Act of 1956. After hearing the objections, the objections raised by the respondent were disallowed keeping in view the fact that the acquisition of the land was based on the alignment of the proposed four lane of National Highway – 48 (hereinafter referred to as NH-48) and the land was being acquired for public purpose. After disallowing the objections, in accordance with sub-Section (2) of Section 3-C of the Act of 1956, the National Highway Authority submitted its report in accordance with Section 3-D(1) of the Act of 1956 to the Central Government. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of Section 3-D of the Act of 1956 issued a final notification in October, 2007.

4. The appellants have further stated that the alignment of the four lane carriage way from km., 28.200 to km., 110.000 was decided as per the parameters laid down by the Indian Road Congress and based upon the detailed project report prepared by the team of experts keeping in view the geometrics, namely vertical and horizontal curves, gradient, topography of area and design as well as the speed. It has been further stated that the respondent before this Court preferred writ petition bearing WP.No.3758/2008 after the construction of the road and the learned Single Judge has quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of a stretch of highway between km., 49.474 to km., 50.

5. Learned counsel for Union of India has vehemently argued before this Court that the construction of the entire project is over and only a small portion of service road is required to be completed and at this juncture, the learned Single Judge has interfered with the matter without there being any reasonable explanation for shifting the road, redesigning the road and to take corrective measures.

6. It has also been argued that a bald submission was made by the respondent that on account of political interference/on account of political rivalry which existed between the respondent/land owner and the persons wielding influence with the National Highway Authorities, due to the political affiliations of certain persons, in order to harm the land owner have designed the road in such a manner that part of the marriage hall adjoining the road will have to be demolished.

7. The learned Single Judge based upon some minutes of the competent authority dated 27.1.2007 has also arrived at a conclusion that the stretch of road involves a bend and that can be straightened. The learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently argued before this Court that the so called minutes of hearing by the competent authority is not the conclusion of the competent authority and it was the argument canvassed on behalf of the land owner and at no point of time, the competent authority has opined that the stretch of road has the bend and can be straightened. It