The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners in the context of land acquisition under the National Highways Act and the ultimate finding that the acquisition was for an essential public and national purpose.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The 12th petitioner stated that he and other petitioners are owners of the landed properties which are situated in Navani Village, Namakkal Taluk. The 2nd respondent namely District Revenue Officer, Namakkal has proposed to acquire the petitioner's lands under the National Highways Act, by publication of a notice under section 3-A of the National Highways Act. The petitioners have submitted their objections to the respondents. Further, the respondents have not paid with soletium of 30% of the land value as provided under section 23(2) an additional compensation at the rate of 9% as provided under section 23(A), interest at the rate of 9% and 15% as the case may be under section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents have not granted fair compensation to the petitioners.

2. The Petitioner submits that her objections were not taken into consideration by the 2nd respondent and though Section 3-C of the National Highways Act 1956, requires a hearing of the objections, no meaningful hearing was conducted by the 2nd respondent. Himself and her Advocate appeared before the 2nd respondent on 21.08.2006 and the 2nd respondent merely noted that about our presence before him. No hearing was conducted, therefore, he has sent his objections in her application filed before the 2nd respondent on 16.09.2006 and on receipt of this application the 2nd respondent in his memorandum dated 29.05.2007 issued in his reference Na.Ka.27673/2006/H4 has stated that her Advocate had given a statement on 22.08.2006. He submits that the 2nd respondent had once again received her objections in writing and none of the objections was considered while rejecting her objections by his order dated 20.10.2006. He submits that among other objections and submitted that by the proposed alignment of the National Highway, her lands will be selected in to 2 bits, one immediately on the west of the existing road and another on the west of the proposed road any by this heir holdings will become uneconomical. In these circumstances, they have filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.42422/2006 questioning the acquisition of heir lands. He submits that pending disposal of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent had made a declaration under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act 1956 and therefore this Court was pleased to dismiss her writ petition by its orders passed on 28.06.2007 as not pressed. He also submit that the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of her writ petition, without considering any of her objections to the notice under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act had rejected our objections by its order dated 20.10.2006.

3. He submits that the proposed alignment of the National Highways will divide heir lands into two bits and as submitted above her holdings will become uneconomical. The 2nd respondent by his order dated 11.09.2006 has stated that since there are residential houses in S.No.173/3 and 173/4 and S.Nos.789, 785, 788 and 790 and a by-pass road was planned. They were also directed to approach the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Salem (in short NHAI, Salem) to get clarifications and the 2nd respondent had forwarded her objections to the said authority by his letter dated 11.09.2006 in Na.kA.27673/06 (H4) dated 11.09.2006 and the National Highways Authority of India, Salem sent a letter in his Ref: NHAI/PD & M(1) NH-7/TN-2/Rep./2006, dated 05.10.2006 stating that since the detailed project report was approved by the Competent Authority, the objections cannot be accepted.

4. The petitioner submits that he has sent an application under Right to Information Act to National Highways Authority of India, Salem, to furnish him the particulars of the detailed project report and to his enquiry of National Highways Authority of India, Salem had sent a reply in his NHAI/PD/NH-7/TN-2/RTI Act/2007, dated 08.06.2007 stating that three options were proposed for the con