JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to decide and consider the objections dated 4.9.2006, 6.9.2006 and 15.1.2007 (Annexures P.3, P4 and P.7) respectively which were filed against notifications dated 2.8.2006 and 2.1.2007 (Annexures P.2 and P.6 respectively) issued under Section 3 of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for acquiring huge chunk of land including small portion of land belonging to the petitioner.
2. The Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highways which is primarily responsible for planning, development and maintenance of roads including national highways has acquired the land in response to Public Interest Litigation concerning congestion of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 11.2.2005 directed National Highway Authority of India to implement the project of Eastern Peripheral Expressway (EPE). The committee appointed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court started the work of preparation of Detailed Project Report from July, 2005. The final alignment as approved by the Monitoring Committee the total length of EPE is 135 Kms. and it passes through Kundli (Haryana), Baghpat(Ghaziabad) and Gautambudha Nagar in Uttar Pradesh and terminates at Palwal(Haryana). Accordingly the approved alignment of EPE was notified and the process of acquisition of the acquired land was initiated. The alignment of this project is stated to have been designed with an objective to coincide the alignment of Western Peripheral Expressway terminating on National Highway 2 and National Highway 1 at both the ends so as to form a complete ring road around Delhi and therefore the acquisition of land becomes inevitable. The notification dated 2.8.2006 was published in two local newspapers on 29.8.2006. On account of some computational error a new notification dated 2.1.2007 was issued. The petitioner filed objections under Section 3C of the Act on 15.1.2007 in respect of property comprised in khatuani No. 176, Killa No. 33/19/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Khursrpur, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad. After hearing objections, the District Revenue Officer on 31.1.2007 passed an order that the land was appropriate for acquisition and further issued directions for payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of trees, woods etc. as per survey.
3. The only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the land of one Mr. Viduri was acquired and the same has been released. However, the afore-mentioned fact has been categorically denied in para 4 of the written statement wherein it has been stated that the land of Mr. Viduri was neither part of notification nor it was ever acquired as alleged. The objections of the petitioner have been duly heard. There is no violation pointed out of any of the requirements of 1956 Act. The petition is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.