ORDER : (M.I. Arun, J.) 1. The lands of the petitioner have been acquired by the respondents for the purposes of Indian Railways. On the ground that there has been delay in passing the final notification contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the Act' for short), the petitioner has challenged the said acquisition. 2. The preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was passed on 19.06.2020. Thereafter, the time for publishing the final notification was extended, as per Section 19(7) of the Act, by a notification dated 03.12.2021 wherein the time stood extended from 02.07.2021 to 31.12.2021. Thereafter, it was again extended by another notification dated 17.03.2022 for the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022. Thereafter, it was again extended by a notification dated 25.08.2022 for the period from 30.06.2022 to 30.08.2022. Again, it was extended by a notification dated 25.11.2022 for the period from 01.11.2022 to 31.12.2022. Again, it was extended for the period from 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023 by a notification dated 06.03.2023. Again, it was extended for the period from 31.03.2023 to 10.04.2023 by a notification dated 10.04.2023 and the final notification has been published on 10.04.2023. The case of the petitioner is that no appropriate reasons have been given for the said extension and even otherwise, extension of time as contemplated under Section 19(7) of the Act also was not properly done and as reflected by the dates on which the notifications were published, it shows that by the time the notifications for extension were issued, the time had already lapsed and for the said reason, it is prayed that the preliminary notification and the final notification be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has not impleaded Indian Railways, who is the beneficiary of the acquisition as a party to the proceedings. That the acquisition took place during the COVID period and furthermore that there was a death of the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer, which warranted extension of time. He further submits that the assembly elections were scheduled in the State of Karnataka in the year 2023. He also submits that the said reasons have been recorded and for the said reasons, there has been extension of time to issue final notification. He further submits that the assembly elections were scheduled in the State of Karnataka in the year 2023. He also submits that the said reasons have been recorded and for the said reasons, there has been extension of time to issue final notification. He also contends that the petitioner had not objected to the acquisition process and he had not filed his objections pursuant to issuance of the preliminary notification. For the said reasons, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is under the given facts and circumstances of the case is it appropriate to set aside the acquisition or not? 5. For developmental work and in the interest of general public, the State is always empowered to exercise its power of eminent domain and acquire the lands required. However, the same has to be done in the manner to known to law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMPETENT AUTHORITY v. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY reported in (2005)13 SCC 477 at paragraph 14 has held as under: "14. Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance i.e. the construction of a national highway. The construction of a national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the landowners, that is, the writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action.” 6. In the present circumstances, the property is sought to be acquired for the purpose of a Railway project, which is of national importance and under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court should be reluctant to set aside the acquisition being done. However, care should be taken that the petitioner is duly compensated for the loss of his lands. 7. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was passed with the following objective as reflected in the preamble of the statute: "An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." 8. For the said reason, the statute contemplates that a final notification has to be published within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the preliminary notification, keeping in mind that award to be passed, shall take into consideration the value of the land as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification. For the said reason, the statute contemplates that a final notification has to be published within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the preliminary notification, keeping in mind that award to be passed, shall take into consideration the value of the land as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification. A preliminary notification is issued as per the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act. Thereafter, persons are prohibited from making transaction in respect of the land concerned. Section 11(4) of the Act reads as under: "11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter are completed: PROVIDED that the Collector may, on the application made by the owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this sub-section: PROVIDED FURTHER that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector." 9. Section 19(1) of the Act reads as under: "19. Section 19(1) of the Act reads as under: "19. Publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (1) When the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under sub-section (2) of section 15, that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect, along with a declaration of an area identified as the “resettlement area” for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, under the hand and seal of a Secretary to such Government or of any other officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same preliminary notification irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required)." 9(i) Section 19(7) of the Act reads as under: "(7) Where no declaration is made under sub-section (1) within twelve months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded: PROVIDED that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded: PROVIDED FURTHER that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same: PROVIDED ALSO that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned." 9(ii) Section 25 of the Act pertains to making an award and it reads as under: "25. Period within which an award shall be made The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: PROVIDED that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same: PROVIDED FURTHER that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.” 9(iii) Proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act reads as under: "26. Determination of market value of land by Collector (1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:— (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: PROVIDED that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11." 10. Thus, perusal of the aforementioned provisions makes it clear that the Act contemplates completion of the acquisition proceedings within a time frame failing which the acquisition proceedings stands lapsed, so that undue hardship is not caused to the person losing the said land. However, it does not prohibit the State from again initiating acquisition proceedings by invoking its power of eminent domain. In other words, the intention of the legislature is that final notification and passing of the award has to be completed within a specified time frame, so that the petitioner is duly compensated and he will not feel cheated due to the acquisition proceedings by the State. That is the intention of the legislature. In other words, the intention of the legislature is that final notification and passing of the award has to be completed within a specified time frame, so that the petitioner is duly compensated and he will not feel cheated due to the acquisition proceedings by the State. That is the intention of the legislature. Further, as reflected in the preamble of the statute, the Act intends to facilitate acquisition of the land for developmental purposes in public interest done by the State. 11. With regard to extension of time, the Act also contemplates a situation wherein it may not be feasible for the State to complete issuance of a final notification within the specified period of one year from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification for various reasons and for that reason, extension is provided for under Section 19(7) of the Act. However, this provision has to be treated as an exception to the rule of issuance of final notification within one year from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification and the exception cannot eat away the rule. It cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to defeat the just compensation that the land loser would be entitled to. 12. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005)13 SCC 477 stated above, the law should not be interpreted to thwart the developmental work taken up by the State in public interest, relying upon technicalities. 13. 12. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005)13 SCC 477 stated above, the law should not be interpreted to thwart the developmental work taken up by the State in public interest, relying upon technicalities. 13. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the land is sought to be acquired for public purpose that is for development of infrastructure for the railways, wherein extension of time was warranted due to the extraordinary COVID-19 situation and the death of the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer albeit the notifications were issued for extension of time belatedly with retrospective effect and the petition having been filed without making the beneficiary 'Indian Railways' a party to the proceedings and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had not objected for acquisition of his lands after issuance of the preliminary notification, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the date for determination of market value of the lands concerned for passing of an award in favour of the petitioner is fixed one year prior to the issuance of final notification i.e., on 09.04.2022 instead of 19.06.2020, which is the date of issuance of the preliminary notification and upholding the acquisition. 14. The State contends that objections have not been filed to the preliminary notification. However, the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge to the acquisition is on the ground of delay in publishing the final notification and not on the ground that he has raised any objections to the preliminary notification. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The act of the respondents in acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioner, which are the subject matter of the writ petition, is hereby upheld; (ii) However, respondent no.2 is directed to pass the necessary award in respect of the lands concerned by taking into consideration the market value of the lands as on 09.04.2022; (iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.