1. In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners who are the land owners are challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the National Highways Authority of India (for short 'NHAI' ) and are seeking for declaring S.3A, S.3C, S.3D, S.3E, S.3F, S.3G & S.3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'NH Act' ) as being unconstitutional and are also seeking for quashing of the notification dated 27.02.2013 issued by the Union of India (for short 'UOI' ) in exercise of the power vested under S.3A of the Act in respect of the lands situated in Karwar Taluk, Uttar Kannada District for purposes of widening National Highway No. 66 (formerly National Highway No. 17) and also the consequential notification dated 07.02.2014 issued under S.3D of the Act.

2. For the public purpose of building (widening four laning etc.,), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 66 (formerly National Highway No. 17) on the stretch of land from km 93/700 to km 283/300 (Goa - Karnataka Border to Kundapur reach) in Panaji - Mangalore Section in the district of Uttar Kannada and Udupi in the State of Karnataka, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S.3 - A of NH Act issued notification bearing No. 482 (E) dated 27.02.2013 by publishing the same in Official Gazette proposing acquisition of the lands mentioned in the Schedule therein. The substance of said notification was also published in local newspapers namely, Deccan Herald - English Daily and Vijaya Karnataka - Kannada Daily on 10.06.2013 as required under S.3A(2) of NH Act.

3. I have heard the arguments addressed by Sri. Soli Sorabjee and Sri. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Sr. Advocates appearing on behalf of Sri. F. V. Patil and Sri. A. S. Patil , learned Advocates appearing on behalf of petitioners and Sri. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Sr. Advocate appearing along with Sri. R. V. Naik for NHAI and the competent authority, Sri. Mruthyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Smt.Vidyavathi and Sri. Keshava Reddy, learned AGAs appearing for the State.

4. It is the contention of learned Sr. Advocates appearing on behalf of petitioners that S.3A, S.3C, S.3D, S.3E, S.3F, S.3G & S.3J of the Act are liable to be struck down on the ground of discrimination and violation of Art.14 in view of the enactment of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Fair Compensation Act' ). The learned Sr. Advocates have broadly canvassed their contentions under the following headings:
i) Vagueness in preliminary notification;
ii) Non - consideration of the objections filed under S.3C of the Act or non - application of mind to consider the objections filed by the land owners and rejection of the same in mechanical manner;
iii) Non - obtaining of environmental clearances;
iv) Provisions of the Act being unconstitutional;
Elaborating the submissions, it is contended that the preliminary notification suffers from vice of vagueness since it does not contain the names of owners of lands proposed to be acquired, it does not specify the exact portion and exact extent of land sought to be acquired, particulars of survey numbers with boundaries not specified and it does not indicate the actual extent of land of each of the petitioners sought to be acquired and as such, impugned notification is liable to be set aside.

5. In this regard, attention of the Court is drawn to the impugned notifications to contend that except mentioning the extent of land proposed to be acquired in square metres, no other details are forthcoming and as such, it is contended the owner would not be in a position to understand as to what portion of their land is being acquired in that particular survey number. In support of said submission, petitioners have relied upon the following judgments:
(1) 2005 (13) SCC 477 - Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and Others