(Appeals under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28-9-2004 in W.P.M.P. Nos.21584 and 21586 of 2004 in W.P.Nos.18124 and 18125 of 2004.

Petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying for Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to Notification No.Na.Ka.39714/2002 NH 45 and 75239/2002/NH dated 22-1-2004 published in Thinamani relating to acquiring of the petitioners' land comprised in S.No.104/2 (104/2 Part) Kolambakkam village, Madhuranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District issued by the third respondent and consequential notice dated 28-5-2005 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.)

The Honourable Chief Justice:

Mr. Kirupakaran, learned counsel wives service for the first respondent. Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader waives service for respondents 2, 3 and 5. The second respondent is a formal party to the proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The writ appeals have been filed challenging the interlocutory order passed in the writ petitions. By consent of the parties, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for hearing along with the writ appeals.

4. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are the co-owners of the property comprised in S.No.104/2 at Kollambakkam village, Maduranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, admeasuring 3.36 Acres. The said property has been purchased by the petitioners under two separate sale deeds dated 12-6-2003, each for 1.68 Acres. Out of 3.36 Acres, an area of 0.80 hectares of land has been acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') for the purpose of four laning of National Highways 45 (NH-45) and for constructing a Truck Parking Bay on NH-45. A notification under Sec.3A(i) of the Act was issued on 24-12-2003 and the substance of the notification was published in "The New Indian Express" and "Dinamani" on 28-1-2004 and also displayed in the Taluk Office, Revenue Divisional Office and the village in question for the information of the public. A period of twenty-one days was given to the landowners to file their objections, if any, but none filed any objection before the competent authority for the land acquisition within the statutory period. Further, when objections were called for as per Sec.3C(2) of the Act, the petitioners have not filed any objections. One T.A. Muniyandi filed an objection and after due consideration by the competent authority, the same was rejected. Ultimately, the final notification under Sec.3D(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 14-6-2004 and consequent upon the publication, the land absolutely vested with the Central Government, free from all encumbrances.

5. The legality and validity of the acquisition is questioned by the petitioners in the present writ petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that Sec.3A(1) of the Act enjoins the competent authority to give a brief description of the land which is sought to be acquired in the notification. Learned counsel submitted that for the purpose of giving a brief description of the land sought to be acquired the person whose land is to be taken away should at least know what he is being deprived of. This becomes all the more necessary when only a part of the land out of a bigger chunk of land is sought to be acquired. Learned counsel submitted that out of the total extent of 3.36 Acres of land, only a part comprising of 0.80 Hectares is sought to be acquired by the impugned notification. The question will naturally arise as to the what is the exact location of this 0.80 Hectares of land out of the larger extent of 3.36 Acres of land of the petitioners as it could be any where on the southern, northern, eastern and western side or even in the middle. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners in the absence of information as to exactly which part of the petitioners' land is sought to be acquired, makes th