GodaRaghuram, J.

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition seeking a declaration that the public notice dated 26-04-2010 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3 G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act') is arbitrary and illegal was rejected by the judgment dated 24-11-2011. Hence this appeal.

To the extent relevant and material the case of the appellant (the petitioner) as pleaded in the writ petition, may be noticed in brief:

(a) The petitioner owns an agricultural land of an extent of Ac.6-15 cents in R.S.No.40 of Konthanapadu Village, Kunkipadu Mandal of Krishna District, situate to the West of National Highway No.9, leading from Machilipatnam to Vijayawada;

(b) In August, 2007, without initiating acquisition proceedings the staff of the respondents trespassed into the petitioner's property and erected some boundary stones;

(c) On enquiries he learnt that the existing two-lane National Highway is proposed to be widened to provide a four-lane Highway; to safeguard properties of influential persons in the area, the respondent authorities have proposed alignment of the road widening in such a way as to deprive the petitioner of an extent of 130 feet depth of his property. Consequently he would lose Ac.2-22 cents to acquisition;

(d) The respondents without issuing even a notification under Section 3 -A of the 1956 Act fixed boundary stones in his property. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation dated 06-09-2007 to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and forwarded a grievance on 09-09-2007 to the 2nd respondent. There being no response has filed W.P.No.25911 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19-12-2007, directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession without following the due process of law;

(e) On 01-01-2008, the 1st respondent issued a notification under Section 3 -A(1) of the 1956 Act which was also published in the News Daily on 10-11-2008. The petitioner's land was also specified for acquisition in this notification. The petitioner submitted written objections to the acquisition on 27-11-2008, to the 4th respondent. As there was no response thereto despite Section 3 – C mandating providing of an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner submitted a reminder on 04-01-2010 to the respondents. The 4th respondent received this communication on 07-01-2010;

(f) In contravention of Section 3 -C and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner a public notice under Section 3-G of the 1956 Act was issued on 26-04-2010. This was published in the newspaper on 01-05-2010;

(g) In paras -6, 8 and 9 the petitioner specifically pleaded that his objections dated 27-11-2008 were neither enquired into nor heard; that his reminder dated 04-01-2010, received by the respondents on 07-01-2010, also elicited no enquiry nor was he afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The specific contention is that in view of violation of Section 3 -C of the 1956 Act all subsequent proceedings including under Section 3 -D and 3 – G would be void; and

(h) The writ petition was thereafter filed on 10-11-2008. The Counter on behalf of the 3rd respondent filed in the writ petition:

(i) The allegations of trespassing into the petitioner's property before initiation of acquisition proceedings is denied;

(ii) The alignment of the road is finalized on technical parameters, on the basis of reports by the consultants and using the contours of the existing road;

(iii) The contention that notification under Section 3 -D of the 1956 Act was not published within one year from the date of issue of the notification under Section 3 -A is denied. The notification under Section 3 -A(1) was published on 01-10-2008 and the notification under Section 3 -D published on 24-09-2009, in the Gazette of India, i.e., within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3 -A;

(iv) The 4th respondent who is the competent authority for land acquisition, disallowed t