Notifications must meet the statutory requirements and furnish all the details in the notification issued at the first instance. Vague notifications may not be quashed, and the court may direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners determined on the basis of the market value as of the day the possession of the respective portions are taken.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have impugned the notifications issued by the respondents under the provisions of Sec. 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act"). The notification under Sec. 3A of the Act is issued on 22/12/2017 and the notification under Sec. 3D of the Act is issued on 16/3/2018.

The principal ground on which the petitioners impugn the aforesaid notifications is on the ground of lack of opportunity to file objection and show cause against the acquisition of their lands as contemplated under Sec. 3C of the Act.

2. In elaboration of the petition averments, Sri.S.M.Kalwad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are the owners of different lands in Kasaba Village, Haddinagudu Village and Sanganakallu Village of Ballari District and only certain portions of their larger lands are notified for acquisition for the purposes of constructing a National Highway under the impugned notifications. Though the first respondent has issued notification under Sec. 3A of the Act, indicating the names of the Village, Taluk, District, the survey numbers and the area required for the purposes of execution of the project, the first respondent has not mentioned the names of the owners whose lands would be acquired; however, in the subsequent notification issued under Sec. 3D of the Act, the names of the persons whose lands are acquired are mentioned apart from the aforesaid details, but again, without mentioning the extent that would be acquired from each of the land owners. The learned counsel canvasses that these anomalies have resulted in a lack of opportunity that is envisaged under the provisions of Sec. 3C of the Act.

3. Sri.S.M.Kalwad further canvasses that if the first respondent had only issued notification under Sec. 3A of the Act specifying the names of the land owners whose lands would be acquired and specifying the respective extents, it would have afforded a reasonable opportunity to them to file objections as contemplated under Sec. 3C of the Act which would have given them a further opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Sec. 3C(2) of the Act with the assistance of a legal practitioner. The notification issued under Sec. 3D of the Act, which is a culmination of the defective notification under Sec. 3A of the Act, also cannot prevail for the same reason.

4. Sri.S.M.Kalwad, relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shafi and others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168, in support of his proposition that the the necessary details must be furnished in the notification issued at the first instance; even if the details are furnished in the final notification, the defect would not be cured and the acquisition must fail.

5. On the other hand, Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the notifications are issued for developing a national highway of 43.96 kms., and substantial work was completed when the petitioners and similarly other placed persons approached this Court impugning the notification. However, certain persons i.e., persons other than the petitioners have withdrawn their petitions and consequentially, about 90% of the work is presently executed and commissioned. The completion of the project in full is hindered only because of the petitioners' objections on the ground that they did not have opportunity. But, the petitioners cannot complain of lack of information or opportunity in view of the categorical statement in the notification issued under Sec. 3A of the Act that the plan would be available for inspection by the interested persons. The petitioners cannot succeed merely because certain details have not been furnished in the notification. In fact, Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli submits that the requirement under Sec. 3A of the Act is to only give a brief description of the lands that are notified for acquisition.

6. Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli next relies upon the decision of the Hon'