Objections to land acquisition must be raised within the prescribed time, and discrepancies between notification and paper publication must be substantial to challenge the validity of notifications.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notifications made under Sections 3-A(1) and 3-D(1) of the National Highways Act 1956 dated 19. 2007 and 12. 2008 respectively pertaining to Survey Nos. 14/3A2 part, 14/4A1 , 14/4B2, 86/1A2 and 14/4C2 at No.71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk in Thiruvallur District.

2. The short facts, which led the petitioners to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions as put forth by them in their affidavits in support of these writ petitions in nutshell is stated hereunder:-

Their father one Vembuli Naicker had purchased certain properties including the properties in question. He died on 2. 1995 and they have partitioned the said properties among themselves along with their sisters on 25. 1997. In and by the said partition they have been allotted separate properties. Certain properties which have been allotted to them were sought to be acquired and a notification was issued by the respondents dated 19. 2007 under the National Highways Act and the same was also published. Challenging the same, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present writ petitions.

3. Thenotification was challenged on the following grounds:-

.(i) Section 3-A (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) contemplates a brief description of the land in the notification. Since the said brief description of the land does not find in the notification, the notification is liable to be set aside.

.(ii) There are discrepancies in the notification and in the paper publication. Therefore, the notification is liable to be set aside.

(iii) If the land is sought to be acquired and if there is a flaw, in the notification it shall be always in favour of the land owners.

4. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein the following facts have been set out:-

.(i) The contentions that Section 3-A was not followed and there is no clarity in the Gazette Notification with reference to the lands in the schedule enclosed are denied.

.(ii) The allegation in this respect is vague and cannot be entertained.

(iii) The respondents have duly followed the procedure as contemplated under the National Highways Act 1956 and the Gazette Notification is issued as contemplated under the Act.

.(iv) Sufficient opportunity was given for raising objection as contemplated under the Act.

.(v) There is no violation of principles of natural justice in the land acquisition proceedings.

5. The learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 have made their submissions based on the pleadings referred to above.

6. The first and foremost submission that was made on behalf of the petitioners, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that Section 3-A(2) of the Act contemplates a brief description of the land. Since the said description does not find place in the notification, the notification made under the Act is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent contended that whatever particulars that is required had been stated in brief description in the notification. Further, according to the learned Additional Advocate General in the said notification itself it is made very clear that the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the office of the competent authority. Hence, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the provisions of Section 3-A of the Act was not violated while issuing notification.

8. Beforeconsidering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent, it wou