1. The petitioner is running a Rice Mill for about 15 years in S.No.142/5 in Pattanam Village, Dindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. When surveys were made during February 2010 by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the purpose of acquiring lands for the Bypass at Dindivanam Town in NH-66, Dindivanam Krishnagiri Section, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.03.2010 to the competent authority requesting them not to acquire his lands, wherein he runs the modern rice mill. It is alleged that he invested huge amount in installing machineries for the purpose of running the Rice Mill and many families are depending on the Rice Mill. It is also alleged that instead of acquiring the lands belonging to the former M.P by name Mr.D.Heerachand, his lands were to be acquired.

2. While so, a notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (shortly "the Act") was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary No.730 dated 20.04.2010 declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire the lands in Salavadi and Pattanam Villages in Dindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District for the purpose of laying of Bypass road at Dindivanam Town in NH-66 Dindivanam -Krishnagiri Section. The land of the petitioner was one among the items of the proposed acquisition.

3. Thereafter, the substance of the said notification was published in a Tamil Daily viz., Dinamani and in a English Daily viz., The New Indian Express on 22.05.2010. In the said publication, it was stated that the persons who are interested in the lands proposed to be acquired might submit objections if any to the competent authority within 21 days from the date of publication of the said notification under Section 3C(1) of the Act. It was also stated that the objectors would be given an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and that after hearing of such objections, the competent authority would either allow or disallow the objections.

4. The petitioner made a representation dated 07.06.2010 to the competent authority pursuant to the aforesaid publication dated 22.05.2010. In the meantime, the petitioner sent a representation dated 08.05.2010 to the Honourable Prime Minister of India raising his objections for acquisition of his lands. All the representations dated 05.03.2010, 08.05.2010 and 07.06.2010 are on the same lines.

5. The objections raised by the petitioner were considered and rejected by the competent authority in his proceedings dated 12.02.2011 which was passed under Section 3C(2) of the Act.

6. The petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.5499 of 2011 questioning the order dated 12.02.2011 of the competent authority rejecting the objections raised by him.

7. When the matter was listed on 18.03.2011, this Court granted an order of dispossession alone and further proceedings were not stayed. However, the interim order of dispossession was not extended subsequently. The respondents filed counter affidavits refuting the allegations made by the petitioner.

8. In these circumstances, the Government of India approved the declaration under Section 3D(1) of the Act in their notification S.O.730(E) dated 08.04.2011 and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary No.615 dated 08.04.2011 for the acquisition of the lands specified in the schedule thereon for the purpose as notified under Section 3A of the Act. In the said notification, a declaration under Section 3(D)(2) of the Act was also made vesting the lands specified in the schedule with the Central Government. The substance of the aforesaid declaration was published in a English Daily viz., "The New Indian Express" and in a Tamil Daily viz., "Daily Thanthi" on 11.05.2011. In the said publication, the owners of the lands and other interested persons of the lands specified in the schedule were directed to appear in person or by agent or by legal practitioner before the competent authority at the venue mentioned in the publication