The court emphasized the necessity and importance of the project for the construction of a National Highway and balanced the rights of the landowners with practical problems, ultimately deciding not to quash the notification.

B. RAJENDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner Company, by name, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL) was established in India based on the approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board, Government of India, dated 11.03.1996. The petitioner Company was incorporated on 06.05.1996 with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. The petitioner has made an application to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [SIPCOT] for allotment of plot for the purpose of establishing the passenger car manufacturing unit and accordingly, the Government of Tamilnadu through SIPCOT, acquired 540 acres approximately at Plot Nos. H1, G5 and G6 in the Industrial Park, Irrungattukkottai, Kancheepuram District and put to use of the petitioner from time to time by various orders of allotment. The allotment of plots were followed up with a Deed of Sale, dated 21.07.1999, in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased lands measuring 1.675 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 106/Part, 105/15, 105/16 Part, 106/1, 105/6, 105/7 and 105/8 along with the building vide Sale Deed, dated 12.06.1997. The petitioner Company also purchased 536.54 acres or thereabouts within the Sub-Registration District of Chengelpet in Kancheepuram Revenue District in various survey numbers, vide, Sale Deed, dated 21.07.1999. The petitioner has established huge superstructure by incurring huge expenses. While so, on 03.11.2012, a representative of fourth respondent had come to petitioner Factory and handed over a proceeding dated 19.10.2012, in which, it was stated that the land owners or the persons interested in the lands could appear for an enquiry before the fourth respondent. The petitioner requested the authority not to proceed with the enquiry and sought some clarification. Thereafter, declaration under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, The Act) was issued by the first respondent by proceedings in S.O. No. 2180 (E), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 21.09.2011. Seeking to quash the impugned Notification issued by the first respondent in S.O. No. 2180 (E), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 21.09.2011 under Section 3A (1) of the Act in respect of the acquisition of petitioner's land in Survey No. 105/1A1 (Pt) measuring 532 sq.mt., Survey No. 105/8B1 (Pt) measuring 174 sq.mt., Survey No. 106/1A1 (Pt) measuring 181 sq.mt and Survey No. 106/4A1 (Pt) measuring 423 sq.mt. at Irrungattukkottai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and to direct respondents 1 to 4 to exclude the said lands from acquisition proceeding, the Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The main ground of attack made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even though, the petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 3G (3) and (4) of the Act, dated 19.10.2012, wherein, it was stated that the land owners or the persons interested in the lands shall appear for an enquiry on 08.11.2012 and submit their objections in respect of acquisition of land, but, the said notice did not clearly make a mention about the land or the actual extent of the land, which is going to be acquired and a land plan is also not appended thereto. He would further add that the said notice was issued in the name of the previous owner and as it was not issued in the name of the petitioner, he only requested the authority not to proceed with the enquiry and sought for some clarification, but, it was not done, therefore, the very Notification issued by the first respondent under Section 3A(1) of the Act is per se illegal. He would further contend that the said Notification failed to meet the requirement as contemplated under the Act. He would further add that since, the Notification does not give brief description of the land sought to be compulsorily acquired and the description of the land is vague, the said Notification is bad in law. He would further point out that as per the Notification, the petiti