JUDGMENT : C. Jayachandran, J. The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions challenges the Land Acquisition proceedings, produced at Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.951/2025. The essential grievance of the petitioners in both these Writ Petitions is with respect to the proceedings produced at Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.951/2025 [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.1548/2025], which reduced the value of the land by 80%, on the allegation that quarrying operations were conducted in such land entailing diminution of land value. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the procedure contemplated in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short) has not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.951/2025 would invite the attention of this Court to the various stages/procedures contemplated in the Act. Section 4 deals with the Social Impact Assessment Study and Section 11 with the preliminary notification. Section 15 contemplates a hearing on the objections of affected persons, but confined to the grounds specified under Section 15 (1)(a), (b) and (c). Section 19 speaks of the publication of declaration and summary of rehabilitation and resettlement. As per Section 20 , the land has to be marked out, measured and planned, including the marking of the specified areas. Section 21 - the crucial Section relied upon by the petitioners - contemplates notice to interested persons. Such notice is not merely with respect to propounding the interest of the persons affected, but also with respect to the amount and particulars of the claims to compensation and also the value of the land, is the submission made. 3. After the hearing contemplated, pursuant to the notice under Section 21 , the Collector has to proceed to pass an award in terms of Section 23 , wherein he is supposed to take into account the objections of the persons interested, the measurements made under Section 20 and also the value of the land on the date of publication of the notification and the respective interest of the persons claiming compensation/ rehabilitation or resettlement. 4. Coming to the instant facts, learned counsel would point out that Ext.P1 notification was issued on 05.02.2021, which is in terms of Section 11 of the 2013 Act. Ext.P2 is the basic valuation report, which is dated 12.04.2022. 4. Coming to the instant facts, learned counsel would point out that Ext.P1 notification was issued on 05.02.2021, which is in terms of Section 11 of the 2013 Act. Ext.P2 is the basic valuation report, which is dated 12.04.2022. Ext.P3 is the controversial order dated 25.05.2023, which refers to the fact that the value of the lands involved have already been fixed and orders passed; that a report has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer on the premise that the lands in question were subjected to quarrying activities, which diminished the land value; and taking stock of that, the value of the land fixed was reduced to the extent of 80%. Accordingly, proceedings were issued vide Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the detailed valuation statement based on Ext.P3. Ext.P5 is a representation preferred by the petitioners, specifically pointing out that they were not afforded with any opportunity of being heard, before issuing Ext.P3. However, the same was rejected vide Ext.P6, stating that the D.V.S is approved and declaration under Section 19 has already been issued, for which reasons, the representation cannot be considered. The exhibits mentioned above are referred to, as produced in W.P.(C) No.951/2025. The sum and substance of the grievance espoused by the petitioners is that they were not afforded with an opportunity of being heard before issuing Ext.P3, which reduced the land value, as much as to the extent of 80% of the value already fixed. According to the counsel for the petitioners, if the District Collector is of the opinion that the land value has to be re-fixed based on the report of the Land Acquisition Officer regarding quarrying, a fresh opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted in terms of Section 21 of the Act, before such re-fixation. The failure to adhere to that mandatory provision would render Ext.P3, as also, all further proceedings illegal and liable to be interfered with. 5. In answer to the above contentions, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that Section 21 is an Award Enquiry Notice and the petitioners are not entitled to agitate the question of classification or categorisation of land, within the scope of Section 21 . Inasmuch as the value of land is reduced/diminished, based on classification of the land, no opportunity of hearing is contemplated in Section 21 , is the argument advanced. Inasmuch as the value of land is reduced/diminished, based on classification of the land, no opportunity of hearing is contemplated in Section 21 , is the argument advanced. Learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out that the acquisition proceedings had proceeded substantially and that, in majority of the cases, Awards have been made. An interference at this belated stage would turn the clock back causing substantial prejudice, is the submission made. Learned Special Government Pleader would hasten to add that the petitioners have a remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. 6. Learned counsel for the 4 th respondent/requisitioning authority would submit based on the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and particular reference is made to Section 9 of that Act, which contemplates a notice, similar to that of Section 21 of the present Act. In the context of Section 9 of the Act, the non-compliance has been held as inconsequential by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasik Municipal Corporation v. Harbanslal Laikwant Rajpal and Others [ (1997) 4 SCC 199 ]. In other words, the Award does not become invalid, for want of opportunity of a hearing under Section 9. Learned counsel would submit that the purport of Section 9 of the old Act and Section 21 of the new Act is one and the same and therefore, absence of a hearing, that too, when the land value was reviewed, cannot be fatal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds substantial merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This Court cannot appreciate the stand of the learned Special Government Pleader that an objection with respect to classification of the land cannot be brought within the purview of Section 21 . Section 21 , as also, Section 23 of the 2013 Act are extracted here below: “ 21. Notice to persons interested. (1) The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him. (1) The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) The public notice referred to in sub- section (1) shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent or advocate before the Collector at a time and place mentioned in the public notice not being less than thirty days and not more than six months after the date of publication of the notice, and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, their claims to rehabilitation and resettlement along with their objections, if any, to the measurements made under section 20. (3) The Collector may in any case require such statement referred to in sub-section (2) to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (4) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier, if any, of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situated. (5) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the Collector shall ensure that the notice shall be sent to him by post in letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address of place or business and also publish the same in at least two national daily newspapers and also on his website. 22. xxxx 23. Enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector. 22. xxxx 23. Enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector. On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 21, to the measurements made under section 20, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification, and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement, shall make an award under his hand of- (a) the true area of the land; (b) the compensation as determined under section 27 along with Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award as determined under section 31 and which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has information. whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.” 8. It could be seen from Section 21 (1) that the claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made by the affected persons. Immediately, this Court notice that any aspect, which affects or touches the grant of compensation, as also, the quantum of compensation can be a subject matter of hearing under Section 21 . Again, Section 21 (2) requires the persons affected to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claim for compensation for such interests, their claims to rehabilitation and resettlement along with their objections, if any, to the measurements made under Section 20 . The expression, 'amount and particulars of their claims' would include their claims with respect to compensation as well, wherefore, a factum which affects the compensation, namely the classification of the land, should also be read into Section 21 (2) for a meaningful purpose, as contemplated in the statute. The expression, 'amount and particulars of their claims' would include their claims with respect to compensation as well, wherefore, a factum which affects the compensation, namely the classification of the land, should also be read into Section 21 (2) for a meaningful purpose, as contemplated in the statute. Now coming to Section 23 , which enjoins the District Collector to pass awards, this Court notice that such award has to be passed after enquiring into the objections, if any, made by the persons interested to the measurements made under Section 20 and into the value of the land on the date of publication of notification and into the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation. This Court therefore concludes that the question with respect to classification or categorization of land, which has a direct and immediate impact on the compensation amount payable to the affected persons, is certainly an aspect which comes within the scope of the objections under Section 21 of the 2013 Act. 9. In this regard, this Court also takes into account the preamble of the 2013 Act, which is extracted here below: “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.” 10. It requires no mention that the 2013 Act attempts to make the procedure for acquisition simpler and more transparent, besides being participative and humane too. It contemplates acquisition by directly paying compensation to the affected persons on the basis of the market value, so as to put a quietus to the legal issues with respect to acquisition. It requires no mention that the 2013 Act attempts to make the procedure for acquisition simpler and more transparent, besides being participative and humane too. It contemplates acquisition by directly paying compensation to the affected persons on the basis of the market value, so as to put a quietus to the legal issues with respect to acquisition. It remains a fact that the claims based on acquisitions - by the consumption of the years taken for its settlement - entail substantial loss to the public exchequer, when statutory claims like interest and solatium are liable to be paid on the compensation amount till the date of actual payment of the amount. It is in the back drop of these factual materials that the 2013 Act has to be read, understood and interpreted. If, for a moment, this Court holds that Section 21 does not contemplate a hearing on the value as such of the land or for that matter the categorization/classification of the land, which has a direct impact on the value, then it may have to be conceived that the affected persons will get an opportunity for the same for the first time, only in terms of Section 64 of the Act, as pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader. The situation is grossly against the intent and the purpose of the 2013 Act. To explain, it may be pointed out that, if a relevant aspect based on classification impacting the compensation is brought to the notice of the District Collector by way of an objection contemplated under Section 21 , the same can also be addressed and the issue can be settled, probably then and there. If we negate such an opportunity, that will only pave the way for further round of litigations. This Court, therefore, rejects the contention of the learned Government Pleader that a question with respect to classification is not one contemplated within the scope of Section 21 of the 2013 Act. 11. Coming to the facts, there is no quarrel that Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.951/2025 is issued without any notice, whatsoever, to any of the affected parties. It appears from Ext.P3 that the District Collector had chosen to take stock only of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, stating that the lands in question were subjected to quarrying, which diminishes the value. It appears from Ext.P3 that the District Collector had chosen to take stock only of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, stating that the lands in question were subjected to quarrying, which diminishes the value. As to how the extent of diminution has been arrived at, is completely opaque in Ext.P3. On what material the District Collector has calculated the diminution to the extent of 80% is also not decipherable from Ext.P3. Ext.P3 cannot be sustained in law, both for reason of being a non-speaking order, as also, for want of providing an opportunity of being heard to the affected persons in terms of Section 21 of the 2013 Act. 12. Before concluding, I will also consider the impact of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasik Municipal Corporation (supra) relied upon by the 4 th respondent requisitioning authority. Nasik Municipal Corporation (supra) was a case, where acquisition of land, pursuant to a scheme to be framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, was the subject matter. After finalising the development plan, notification under that Act was issued. Pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notice was issued under Section 9 of the Act and Award came to be passed on 22.09.1989. Writ Petitions were filed. By proceedings dated 26.12.1990, certain lands reserved for public purpose were deleted by a notification dated 28.06.1993. Final plan was published on 30.09.1993. Based on a representation made by the Corporation, the Government issued the corrigendum on 19.08.1994 restoring status quo ante, with a slight modification. In the light of the corrigendum issued, the High Court held that the Award passed was not valid. Appeals by special leave were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One of the contentions of the respondents before the Supreme Court was that the Award was bad in law, since information in terms of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not given to the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no.5 that the absence of notice or failure to serve notice will not invalidate the Award. The above finding of the Supreme Court will have to be understood in the given factual matrix of that case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no.5 that the absence of notice or failure to serve notice will not invalidate the Award. The above finding of the Supreme Court will have to be understood in the given factual matrix of that case. As could be seen from paragraph no.4 of the judgment, the corrigendum has the effect of restoring status quo ante of the final plan. Thus, doing away with the acquisition, except for a small part to be utilised for a residential purpose. It is in this context that the Supreme Court considered the question whether the entire process of issuance of notice under Section 28, involving objections and passing of final plan is required to be gone through. The Supreme Court found that the same need not be done. It is in continuation that the further contention of failure to serve notice was considered and held that the award does not become invalid for that reason. Nasik Municipal Corporation (supra) cannot be propounded as an authority to contend that failure to serve notice in terms of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act is not fatal. The dictum laid down in the above factual matrix cannot be equated to the present fact scenario, wherein the land value, already been fixed, has been reduced to the extent of 80%, only relying upon a report of the Land Acquisition Officer, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Unlike the facts before the Supreme Court, here is a case where petitioners were substantially affected and aggrieved by the reduction of the land value, that too, to the extent of 80%, without hearing them, admittedly. I therefore find that Nasik Municipal Corporation (supra) cannot come to the rescue of the respondents. 13. In the circumstances, Ext.P3 (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.1548/2025) is set aside. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, including the Awards claimed to have been passed, will also become illegal, which however, has to be confined to the lands in question of the petitioners before this Court. Consequently, all the Awards passed as against the acquisition of lands of the petitioners before this Court are, therefore, set aside. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, including the Awards claimed to have been passed, will also become illegal, which however, has to be confined to the lands in question of the petitioners before this Court. Consequently, all the Awards passed as against the acquisition of lands of the petitioners before this Court are, therefore, set aside. The District Collector will proceed from the stage of Section 21 , after affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioners on the factum of quarrying, the question of diminution of land, if any, and the extent of such diminution, if any, and shall pass proper Awards in terms of Section 23 , after taking into account all the above aspects. It is specifically directed so, in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1548/2025 that the so called quarrying, if any, conducted in the land has not impacted such land with any deleterious consequences, but has only improved its utility, by making such land at par with the road level, which contention is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.951/2025, as well. 14. In the light of the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed and the District Collector will proceed as directed afore, in accordance with law.