JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated December 6, 2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 vide which the objections filed by the petitioners against the acquisition of their land were rejected. The aforesaid order was passed in view of the direction issued by this Court in Writ (C) No. 23630 of 2020, titled as Pramod Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Union of India and Others, decided on January 20, 2021.

2. The ground raised for challenging the aforesaid order is that the term 'technical' was not defined in the impugned order. Further, the acquisition of the land for widening of the portion of the National Highway No. 24 (Hapur-Moradabad Section), has been made one side of the road only whereas it should have been made both sides equally. In case, such process is followed, the petitioners will save part of their land from acquisition and will be able to earn their livelihood therefrom. It was further submitted that instead of widening of road, construction of elevated road on the spot may be more economical. Hence, the respondents should have explored that option as well.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the direction issued by this Court, the objections filed by the petitioners were considered. As alignment of road, construction and widening thereof are highly technical, especially with reference to National Highways, number of aspects are to be taken care of. The process of acquisition of the land is started only after examining all the aspects in detail. In the case in hand, all aspects were examined and the acquisition of the land was finalised. The idea being floated by the petitioners that acquisition of the land should be made on both sides of the road equally, is totally misconceived for the reason that in that situation much more persons than the present petitioners will be affected. It is not for the petitioners to decide whether existing road is to be widened or the elevated road is to be constructed. In any case, construction of elevated road is not as cheaper as is sought to be suggested by the petitioners. The widening of portion of National Highway No. 24 is being made to take care of the increase in traffic on road and creation of infrastructure. Though land of several persons has been acquired in the process of widening of road, however, it is only few persons, who are making objections, otherwise majority of them have no objection.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present writ petition. As is apparent from the record, the notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') was issued on October 12, 2020. As informed by the learned counsel for the respondents, the notification under Section 3D of the Act was also issued on March 12, 2021. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ-C No. 23630 of 2020. The same was disposed of on January 20, 2021. A perusal of the order dated January 20, 2021 passed by this Court shows that prayer made was for quashing of the notification under Section 3A of the Act. The only grievance raised therein was that the objections of the petitioners to the acquisition had not been considered. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of, directing the Authority concerned to consider the objections filed by the petitioners. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, instead of considering the objections himself, had referred the matter to the Project Director, National Highways Authority, Moradabad vide order dated February 12, 2021. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioners again filed Writ (C) No. 14166 of 2021, titled as Pramod Kumar Gupta and Others vs. National Highways Authority of India and Others. The same was allowed on July 1, 2021 by setting aside the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated February 12, 2021, with direction to decide the objections afresh. It is