Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. The petitioner has stated that he is a practicing surgeon and that he is having his nursing home, at Salem. All his family members are doctors and they are rendering service to the society, in the medical field. The petitioner had intended to develop his nursing home to serve the people in the locality. While so, the respondents had acquired parts of the lands belonging to him, in piecemeal, defeating his intention to develop the nursing home. The respondents had acquired a total extent of 80,898 square feet of the lands belonging to the petitioner, by way of three notifications. The lands in question were predominantly agricultural lands and they had been acquired for forming a road. The act of the respondents is patently irregular, as it is against the relevant provisions of law.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notification, under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). is illegal and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. The impugned proceedings had been issued by the respondents without following the mandatory provisions of the Act, as it seeks to defeat the basic rights of the land owner to raise his objections, under Section 3-C(1) of the Act.

4. It has also been stated that the impugned proceedings had been issued, by the respondents, contrary to the statutory rights conferred on the petitioner, under Sections 3-A(3) and 3-C(1) and 3-C(2) of the Act. A major portion of the lands belonging to the petitioner, in two villages, had been acquired causing serious loss and hardship to the petitioner and to the members of his family. The respondents had failed to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed, under Section 3-A of the Act.

5. It has been further stated that the land belonging to the petitioner had been acquired without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as required under sub Section 2 of Section 3-C of the Act. As the lands belonging to the petitioner had been acquired without following the due process of law, it is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 29.3.2012, and the second respondent, dated 17.5.2012, are liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that Section 3-A (2) of the Act states that every notification under sub-Section (1) shall give a brief description of the land sought to be acquired. No such description of the land sought to be acquired had been given in the impugned notification, even though various portions of the large extent of the lands belonging to the petitioner had been acquired. He had also submitted that the acquisition of the various portions of the lands belonging to the petitioner had taken place, based on the same notification, contrary to the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the first and the second respondents are bad in law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in COMPETENT AUTHORITY Vs. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY (2005) 13 SCC 477) , in support of his contentions.

7. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents had submitted that Section 3-A(2) of the Act requires only a brief description of the land sought to be acquired. After a notification is issued, under Section 3-A of the Act, the procedures prescribed under Section 3-B of the Act are followed. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing is granted to the owner of the land concerned, under Section 3-C of the Act. In fact, the petitioner had been asked to appear for an enquiry, on 31.5.2012. However, the petitioner had failed to appear for the personal hearing. Therefore, an enquiry had been conducted in the absence of the petitioner. Pursuant to the procedu