(1.) AS the facts leading to both writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) FOR better appreciation, the facts involved in one of the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.2828 of 2009, are briefly stated hereunder: - The petitioner owned 1.75 acres of land in Survey Nos.3/6 and 3/10 of Pappinaickenpatti Village, Namakkal Taluk and District and hte same were acquired by the respondents under the National Highways Act for the purpose of laying 4 laning National Highways No.7 running between Salem and Karur and thereafter, the Competent Authority had determined the compensation under Section 3 -G of the Act. After receiving the same under protest, the petitioner has also approached the Competent Authority to refer the same to an Arbitrator as provided under the Act. When the matter stands thus, the petitioner was once again shocked to see the Gazette Notification No.864 S.O.1444(E), dated 13.06.2008, issued under Section 3 -A(1) of the Act and thereafter, invited objections under Section 3 -A(3) of the Act, by newspaper advertisement through Dinathanti dated 02.07.2008 calling for objections from the petitioner for acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioner situate in Survey Nos.3/6 and 3/10. Since the said notice dated 02.07.2008 indicated that the said lands were going to be acquired for building, maintenance, management or operation of National Highway, on enquiry in the office of the 4th respondent, it was found that the lands of the petitioner were acquired originally for the purpose of forming 4 laning NH No.7 and at present, the remaining lands are also going to be acquired by the respondents for the purpose of setting up a truck lay -by to enable the drivers to park their vehicles on the truck lay -by for different purpose, like repairing the vehicles, taking rest for some time, etc.
(3.) IN his further submission, it was contended that the purpose for which the respondents proposed to acquire the lands of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 3 -A of the National Highways Act, 1956, since the notification issued under Section 3A is not only vague, but also fails to specify the purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired. Adding further, he elaborated his argument that the petitioner after coming to know about the acquisition proceedings, he has submitted his objection under Section 3C(1) of the Act and thereafter, the 4th respondent is required to hold an enquiry for the purpose of giving the owners an opportunity of making their objections, it is only thereafter the respondents could declare the acquisition under Section 3D. But, interestingly, the 4th respondent, after receiving objection, wrongly rejected without holding enquiry nor assigning any reason.