The CALA's jurisdiction is confined to evaluating objections based on the necessity for land as per Section 3-A, without power to change highway alignments after notification under Section 3-D.

JUDGMENT

Often than not, compulsory land acquisition leave a trail of throes, pangs and agony to many land owners.

2. This is why, as commonly seen in Courts: come Land Acquisition, comes litigation.

3. Acquisition for developmental purposes has been, historically, a contentious issue, not only in India, but all over the world.

4. Many threads of resistance run through such conflicts and justifiably so because land is not merely an important economic resource, but is sometimes central to individual and family identity, sentimental attachments, history and even culture. 5. Unsurprisingly, owners of land impel variegated reasons against acquisition and when it comes to development and creation of roads and Highways, amongst the most common of it all - at least from the experience of ligations – is that the alignment is unscientific, mala fide or without considering more feasible alternatives.

6. Posed in this writ petition, in the afore context is whether the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act ('NH Act', for short), is competent to alter the alignment of the Highway proposed by the Government, consequent to the publication of the final declaration under Section 3-

D of the NH Act.

7. The petitioners are persons whose properties are affected by the acquisition of lands for the National Highway 66 and they say that they have raised objections against its alignment before the CALA - including by offering an alternate perspective - so that their properties can be saved to the extent possible, pointing out several infirmities in the process leading to the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act.

8. The petitioners say that, however, none of their objections were addressed appositely by the CALA and that Government of India has gone ahead and issued the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act; which has thus constrained them to approach this Court, assailing Exts.P16 to P18(a) and Exts.P28 and P32 proceedings of the CALA, which has rejected their objections and suggestions.

9. I have heard Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Vineetha Susan Thomas, appearing for the petitioners; Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.1 – Union of India; Shri.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Sudhinkumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 – the Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and Smt.Resmi Thomas, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3.

10. Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, opened his submissions vehemently arguing that, on the intervention of the 3rd respondent - CALA, the alignment had been altered several times in the past; but that when it came to the objections of his clients, said Authority refused to accede to it, thus causing the Government of India to issue a statutory notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act. He pointed out several instances from the plethora of documents on record to impress upon me that suggestions were made by the CALA with respect to the alteration of the alignment earlier proposed and that Government of India had acted upon them, thus leading to the present notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act. He predicated that, therefore, the CALA is still competent to change the alignment of the proposed Highway, particularly if there are vitiating factors - as have been pointed out by the petitioners, involved in the publication of the Section 3-D notification. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed and his clients' objections be directed to be properly reconsidered by the CALA; and to consequently order the Government to modify the Section 3-D notification appropriately.

11. Dr.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the NHAI, countered the afore submissions of Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, saying that, as is apodicti