1. In both these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated 26.03.2010 and the consequential declaration made under section 3D(1) and (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated 11.08.2010 and 19.07.2010 respectively in respect of the subject matter lands at two different villages. Since the facts and issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are dealt with together as hereunder.

2. The case of the petitioner company is as follows:

The petitioner owns 4.38 hectares of land in Survey Nos.845/1A2, 846, 847, 848/1 of Madukkarai village and 1.51.50 hectares of land in Survey Nos.168/1B, 168/1B4 and 168/1B5 at Thirumalayampalayam village in Coimbatore District. The second respondent through a publication made in the newspaper dated 17.04.2010 issued a notice proclaiming that the land measuring 3100, 2205 and 37 sq.mts. respectively in Survey Nos.845/1A2, 846, 847 of Madukkarai village and the lands in Survey Nos.168/1B3, 168/1B4 and 168/1B5 at Thirumalayampalayam village measuring 4109, 3496 and 3493 sq.mts. respectively were to be acquired for the purpose of broadening the National Highway No.47 from Km102/035 to Km 183/060 (Chengapalli-Walaiyar portion) for the purpose of establishing and maintaining 6 lanes and 4 lanes road. The Central Government had issued a notice under section 3A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in the Central Government Gazette. The said notice invited objections from the interested persons against the above acquisition has to be filed before the fourth respondent under section 3C(1) of the said Act. The petitioner submitted two objections dated 29.04.2010 separately in respect of the lands situated in those two villages. The petitioner specifically stated about the improvements made by them in the said lands by incurring huge expenditure. It was not clear as to whether the petitioner's lands were intended to be used for four lane or six lane widening. The extent of the acquisition was not stated. The notification did not contain even a brief description of the lands which were proposed to be acquired out of the bigger extent owned by the petitioner. The dimension of the road was not stated. There were poramboke lands available near the petitioner's lands and therefore, these lands need not be acquired. As those details are not available under 3A(1) notice, the petitioner sought for necessary details through their objections filed on 29.04.2010. The fourth respondent issued a notice on 10.05.2010 calling upon the petitioner to attend for an enquiry on 17.05.2010. The petitioner sent a letter on 14.05.2010 to the fourth respondent requesting for the supply of details sought by them and for conducting the enquiry after supplying of the same. The fourth respondent after receiving the above communication, sent two notices on 24.05.2010 by stating that the details sought for by the petitioner were being supplied through the said notice. It was stated therein that the exact measurement and dimension of the lands to be acquired along with Survey Number and subdivision should be given after the survey work was over and the same would be disclosed in the notice issued under section 3D(1) of the said Act. It was also stated that the petitioner could peruse the rough sketch in the office during the office hours. After adducing those particulars and without fully complying with the request of the petitioner, the fourth respondent called upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 31.05.2010. Since the Managing Director of the petitioner was out of station, a telegram was sent on 17.05.2010 followed by a detailed letter on 31.05.2010 requesting to conduct the enquiry after 15.06.2010. However, the fourth respondent without considering the above request, held an enquiry on 31.05.2010 in the absence of the petitioner Company and consequently, passed an order on the same day overruling the objecti