The NHAI has the discretion to determine highway alignment and land acquisition processes, with judicial review being limited to instances of legal violations or mala fides.

JUDGMENT

National Highway is the main public road that connects different cities, towns, and even villages. It is a major and significant public road that is able and fit to carry fairly heavy traffic. Good transport infrastructure like Highway Network enhances transport system that reduces transportation fast and this in turn definitely reduces the production cost, while it increases productivity and profitability of the country. Highway Network also makes transportation schedules and deliveries more reliable and timely. Highways also contribute immensely to social groups and even to strengthen family relationships. The citizens can visit their loved ones more often and it enhances the good relationship between family and friends. The highway can relatively reduce travel time to villages, cities, and towns, thereby, encourage people to travel for business and trade. Highway make journeys faster, comfortable, and safer than usual while at the same time, reduce fuel consumption also. An American Art critic Dave Hickey once said that "Beauty is and always will be blue skies and open highway."

2. National Highway Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "NH Act, 1956") was enacted with a great object and reason. When you want better National Highways to improve the economy of the country, the land is necessary for which land acquisition proceedings is inevitable. Of course, that may create some problems for the citizens because they may lose the land where they and their families were staying for decades. Everybody will feel bad when their land is being bulldozed in connection with land acquisition. Without difficulty to a section of the citizens, no development activities can be implemented in the Country.

Difficulties are part of development. When the development of the country is the object, citizens should neglect their minor difficulties. The legislations like National Highway Act, the old Land Acquisition Act, and also the new enactment namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "RFCTLARR Act, 2013") are there and it will to some extent protect the rights of the citizens, whose land is acquired. There are provisions for granting adequate compensation and also rehabilitation schemes in the above legislation. This may not be an alternative when one is losing his land where he was born and brought up. But, difficulties like this should be accepted to achieve the development of our great nation.

3. The above 4 writ petitions are filed challenging the acquisition of land for the widening of National Highway-66 in the stretch from KM 499.000 to KM 501.000 situated mainly in Umayanallor Village, Thazhuthala, and adjacent villages of Kollam District. The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the National Highway Authority of India is not following the directions of the state government about the alignment of the proposed widening of National Highway-66. According to the petitioners, the Government of Kerala with a specific intention to save religious institutions suggested some change in the alignment. But the same is neglected. Their grievance is that to save a private Mosque, the alignment of the National Highway itself is changed and the acquisition is concentrated on the northern side(Left hand side) of the existing National Highway, where some of the petitioners are residing and some of the religious institutions are situated. I will narrate the contentions of the petitioners separately.

PLEADINGS WPC Nos. 27217/2019 and 1445/2021

4. These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners. According to the petitioners, the original proposed alignment was to acquire land from both sides of the existing road.

But, the present proposal is to acquire land only from one side of the road for the expansion of the Highway. The petitioners contended that Ext.P7 produced in W.P.(C.) No.27217/2019 shows that the