T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. Sincethese appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed in batch of writ petitions, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners are the appellants. They filed writ petitions seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9the July, 2008, in Na.Ka. No.28943/06/Vu7 published in the “Daily Tanthi” dated 16th July, 2008, so far as it relates to the petitioners/appellants.

3. The acts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The petitioners/appellants are the owners of the land in Alagumalai Revenue Village, Tirupur Taluk, Coimbatore District. There is a National Highway going from Karur to Coimbatore and the highway is abutting their lands. It is said that the officials of the National Highways Department inspected the lands of the appellants and took measurement. On enquiry, the appellants came to know that the respondents are going to lay bye-pass road connecting NH 67 from Avinashipalayam Sungam to Ramaswamy Koil Pirivu instead of widening the existing NH-67. The appellants case is that, they came to know about the notification dated 21st Nov., 2007 in the newspapers. Immediately, the appellants submitted detailed objections to the respondents on 8th Dec., 2007. The 1st respondent did not pass orders u/s 3-C (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The appellants case was that the impugned order came to be passed without passing order u/s 3-C (2) of the said Act, which is violative of principles of natural justice.

5. The authority of the respondents, National Highways, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the gazette notification dated 26th Oct., 2007, for acquisition of land of the appellants was notified and the same was published in two daily newspapers. A public notice was also issued calling for objections from interested persons. Necessary enquiry was made u/s 3-C (2) of the Act on 8th Jan., 2008, and after perusing the representation, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that the acquisition of land is inevitable for widening the road and, accordingly, the objections/claim of the appellants was disallowed on 29th Jan., 2008. The further case of the respondents is that after the aforesaid order u/s 3-C (2) of the Act was passed, necessary notification u/s 3-D (1) of the Act was notified in the gazette on 23rd May, 2008 and the substance of the gazette notification was published in the newspapers as required u/s 3-G (3) of the Act.

6. The main contention of the petitioners/appellants in the writ petition was that they were not aware about the order made u/s 3-C of the Act. It was contended that the order u/s 3-C was passed behind the back of the appellants and they were not given opportunity of hearing. Even the copy of this order was not served or communicated to the appellants.

7. Learned single Judge is of the view that since the order made u/s 3-C of the Act was not challenged by the appellants and the only challenge was about the notification dated 9th July, 2008, the question of accepting the submission of the appellants with regard to the validity of the order made u/s 3-C cannot be gone into. Learned single Judge is also of the view that once the lands vested with the Government as required under Section 3-D of the Act, the petitioners/appellants remedy lie only in claiming compensation as provided u/s 3-G of the Act. Accordingly, all the writ petitions have been dismissed. However, while dismissing the writ petition, learned Judge, in the last paragraph of the order observed as under :-

“10. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that if there is any possibility to give up the lands of the petitioners, the respondents could be directed to consider the same. It is always open to the petitioners to approach the respondents with such request and as and when such request is made by the petitioners, it is open to the respondents to decide the same on merits and in