ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question acquisition proceedings instituted by the respondent/State for the purpose of laying down a Railway project. 2. Heard Sri Karthik S.Tayur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Spoorthy Hegde N, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri M.N. Kumar, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: - 3.1. A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) was issued on 30-01-2019 seeking to acquire several lands including the land of the petitioner measuring 24½ guntas. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, on 6-06-2019, issues a notice to the petitioner concerning his land as obtaining under Section 11(1) of the Act. Four years thereafter, the Department of Revenue in the State of Karnataka, issues another notification under Section 19(1) and 19(2) of the Act, appointing the 3 rd respondent as the Collector for all matters pertaining to possession and procedure concerning the subject acquisition for it to be taken to its logical conclusion. 3.2. The 3 rd respondent/Special Land acquisition Officer then issues a notice under Section 21(1) and (2) of the Act to the petitioner, but reflecting petitioner’s acquired land as 17 guntas and omitting several developments in the land including trees and crops that were standing. The notice directed objections to be filed within 30 days. As observed, the notice was issued on 30-01-2023. The petitioner then files his objections on 15-02-2023 objecting to the change in the acquisition quantity from 24½ guntas to 17 guntas, apprehending that his land would be acquired without compensation. On 30-05-2023, an award notice is issued under Section 37(2) of the Act to the petitioner qua the acquired land. The petitioner communicates a representation to the 3 rd respondent seeking withdrawal of the award notice for it being contrary to the objections so filed. An endorsement comes about rejecting the petitioner’s representation without adverting to any facts therein. The petitioner is before this Court on an issue that he was not heard in the matter as obtaining under Section 21 of the Act. 4. An endorsement comes about rejecting the petitioner’s representation without adverting to any facts therein. The petitioner is before this Court on an issue that he was not heard in the matter as obtaining under Section 21 of the Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that Section 21(1) and (2) of the Act requires personal hearing to be given to every land owner. A common notice in the case at hand is issued and objections are filed. None of the objections are considered. The matter straightaway gets into passing of the award. It is, therefore, the learned counsel contends that it is in violation of Section 21(1) and (2) of the Act. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/State and the Railways would vehemently contend that the project is half completed. Today to hold the acquisition otherwise would create jeopardy to the project itself. The learned counsel Sri M.N. Kumar submits that it was for the State to have taken precaution qua the procedure. The learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that procedure has been followed, notice is issued, objections are called, objections are considered and award is notified. He would submit that every necessary procedure in law has already been complied. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are not in dispute. It would suffice if the iteration would happen from a notice issued under Section 21 of the Act. On 30-01-2023 the 3 rd respondent/SLAO issues the following notice: The aforementioned notice concerns 17 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner files his objections to the said notice stating that acquisition was for 24½ guntas, it is reduced and the remaining 7½ guntas which is acquired would now be acquired without compensation. The objection is as follows: This comes to be rejected by the endorsement which reads as follows: The rejection of the endorsement leads to issuance of an award notice. The award notice dated 30-05-2023 is for 17 guntas. 8. The preliminary notification dated 30-01-2019 issued concerning the subject land is as follows: In the final notification dated 18-01-2023 the measurement is shown as 17 guntas. The award now is for 17 guntas. Therefore, there is serious discrepancy. The award notice dated 30-05-2023 is for 17 guntas. 8. The preliminary notification dated 30-01-2019 issued concerning the subject land is as follows: In the final notification dated 18-01-2023 the measurement is shown as 17 guntas. The award now is for 17 guntas. Therefore, there is serious discrepancy. The petitioner appears to have later filed an application before the concerned authority seeking enhancement of compensation. But the award now stares at the petitioner qua measurement. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1/-crore in terms of the Act and, therefore, he ought to have been heard in the matter. 9. The issue now would be, whether the statute mandates personal hearing prior to passing of the award. It, therefore, becomes necessary to notice Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act reads as follows: “ 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. (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. (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.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 21(1) mandates the Collector to publish public notice on the website stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and claims of compensation by all interested in the land be made to him. Sub-section (2) mandates that the State shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally at the time and place mentioned in the notice not more than six months from the date of publication of the notice and submit their grievances against the determination. Section 23 of the Act reads as follows: “ 23. Sub-section (2) mandates that the State shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally at the time and place mentioned in the notice not more than six months from the date of publication of the notice and submit their grievances against the determination. Section 23 of the Act reads as follows: “ 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.” Section 23 deals with enquiry and land acquisition award by the Collector. This again refers to the enquiry by the Collector for hearing any person interested who had been issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, the requirement is grant of personal hearing under Section 21(2) of the Act which is carried forward to Section 23. 10. The interpretation of Sections 21 and 23 of the Act need not detain this court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS v. UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2179 holds as follows: “…. …. …. 7. In the case at hand, the appellant has not been accorded hearing in terms of Section 21 of the 2013 Act. Thus, in the absence of objections, which the appellant could not file for the reasons beyond its control, no inquiry as per Section 23 of the 2013 Act could be held. 8. …. …. 7. In the case at hand, the appellant has not been accorded hearing in terms of Section 21 of the 2013 Act. Thus, in the absence of objections, which the appellant could not file for the reasons beyond its control, no inquiry as per Section 23 of the 2013 Act could be held. 8. For a fair and just determination of compensation within the statutory scheme of the 2013 Act, it is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate. 9. We are, thus, of the view that the appropriate recourse would be that the Collector-respondent no. 3 must give one opportunity to the appellant to submit its objections, if any, followed by a personal hearing to the authorized representative, and then pass an appropriate award after holding inquiry under Section 23 of the Act. 10. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed in part and the award dated 04.05.2020 passed in respect of the acquired land of the appellant is set aside together with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The Collector- respondent no. 3 is directed to issue a fresh notice to the appellant under Section 21 of the 2013 Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The appellant shall submit its objections, if any, within the stipulated period. The Collector shall, thereafter, hear the appellant's representative and pass award afresh after conducting inquiry in accordance with the scheme of 2013 Act. 11. The Collector shall pass the award as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.” The Apex Court holds that the appellant has not been accorded hearing in terms of Section 21 of the Act. In the absence of objections, no inquiry under Section 23 could be held. Therefore, the foundation is personal hearing under Section 21. The award challenged before the Apex Court was set aside on the aforesaid interpretation. In the absence of objections, no inquiry under Section 23 could be held. Therefore, the foundation is personal hearing under Section 21. The award challenged before the Apex Court was set aside on the aforesaid interpretation. In the case at hand as well, there is no personal hearing granted to the petitioner, the land loser. 11. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of SHREE NASIK PANCHAVATI PANJRAPOLE v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 547 considering this very issue of grant of personal hearing and right to be heard, has held as follows: “….. …. …. 13. In this case, we are concerned with Section 21(2)because the notice dated 16 June 2023 was issued under Section 21(2) of the said Act. This provision, in terms, provides that public notice referred to in Section 21(1) must 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. 14. Thus, it is clear that notice under Section 21(2) must give the persons interested liberty to object by filing appropriate written objections and also appear personally or through Advocate before the Collector at the place and time mentionedin such notice. Section 21(2) explicitly provides that such a date must not be less than 30 days from the notice's publication date. In the present case, the notice was published on 16 June 2023, but the date and time fixed were only 27 June 2023, much less than the minimum 30-day period provided under Section 21(2) of the said Act. 15. Be that as it may, the Petitioners, through its Advocate, filed the objections on 3 July 2023 i.e. within 30 days of the publication of Section 21(2) notice dated 16 June 2023. The impugned Award was on 23 November 2023. 15. Be that as it may, the Petitioners, through its Advocate, filed the objections on 3 July 2023 i.e. within 30 days of the publication of Section 21(2) notice dated 16 June 2023. The impugned Award was on 23 November 2023. Thus, on 3 July 2023 and 23 November 2023, the Land Acquisition Collector had ample time to comply with the requirements of Sections 21 and 23 of the said Act and hear the representative of the Petitioner or the Petitioner's Advocate before the impugned Award could be made and published. Still, neither the representative of the Petitioner nor the advocates were heard before the impugned Award was made on 23 November 2023. 16. In Tirupati Developers (supra), Section 21 notice was issued on 04 March 2020. On 20 March 2020, the Petitioners requested the Collector additional time to file objections and appear before the Collector due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown in Mumbai. Without considering such a request, the Collector made an award on 04 May 2020. This Court dismissed the Petition to challenge the Award by granting the Petitioner liberty to seek enhanced compensation through the process of Section 64 of the 2013 Act. 17. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed this Court by observing that under Section 22, interested persons are entitled to make a statement before the Collector, whereupon the Collector is obligated to hold an inquiry on the objections submitted by the interested persons and pass an Award. The Court held that the right to pursue the objections by seeking a reference under Section 64 is a later stage, i.e. “after the Collector has followed the procedure prescribed under Chapter IV of the 2013 Act, and culminating into determination of compensation and passing of the award.” 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the Petitioners had not been accorded a hearing in terms of Section 21 of the2013 Act. In the absence of objections, which the Petitioners could not file for reasons beyond its control, no inquiry as per Section 23 of the 2013 Act could be held. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, crucially observed that for a fair and just determination of compensation within the statutory scheme of the 2013 Act, it is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, crucially observed that for a fair and just determination of compensation within the statutory scheme of the 2013 Act, it is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the impugned Award and directed the Collector to give the Petitioners an opportunity to submit objections, if any, followed by a personal hearing to the authorised representative and then pass an appropriate Award after holding an inquiry under Section 23 of the said Act. 20. Mr. Dighe emphasised a stray line in paragraph 8, which reads, “ The interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or his claim ”. Based upon this, he submitted that the Petitioner in the present matter was given such opportunity because the objections filed by the Petitioner's advocate were duly considered in the impugned Award. 21. The sentence relied upon by Mr. Dighe must be read in the context. Before this sentence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed that for a fair and just determination of compensation within the statutory scheme of the 2013 Act, it is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. Besides, after the statement relied upon by Mr. Dighe, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, “Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate”. 22. Thus, the mere consideration of the objections filed by the Petitioner through its lawyer would not be a substitute for the fair opportunity of hearing either to the Petitioner's representatives or the Petitioner's advocate in terms of the statutory scheme of the said Act. The impugned Award thus warrants interference on the short ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner or its advocate before it was made. 23. The impugned Award thus warrants interference on the short ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner or its advocate before it was made. 23. In Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shahthe Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while the right to property drifted from Part II to Part XII of the Constitution, there continues to be a potent safety net against arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and unfair redressal mechanisms. Despite its spatial placement, Article 300-A which declares that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” has been characterised both as a constitutional and also a human right. To assume that constitutional protection gets constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation would be a disingenuous reading of the text and, shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the State action or the legislation that results in the deprivation of private property must be measured against the sub-rights or strands illustrated in paragraph 29, not just one or many of its strands. In paragraph 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that one of the sub-rights or strands of this Swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the property right was the State's duty to hear objections to the acquisitions - the right to be heard. The second was the duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire - the right to a reasoned decision. The Court held that the seven sub-rights are the foundational components of a law that is in tune with Article 300-A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge. 25. The argument that there was no prejudice as such to the Petitioner for want of compliance with statutory provisions embodying the principles of natural justice is not readily entertained. Non-compliance with natural justice can itself, in some situations, amount to prejudice. There is a considerable difference between filing written objections prepared by an advocate and an oral hearing where the party or his advocate can persuade the decision maker of the merits of its version. In any event, if the legislature has provided a personal hearing or hearing through an advocate, then such procedure cannot be lightly deviated from without any strong reasons. 26. In any event, if the legislature has provided a personal hearing or hearing through an advocate, then such procedure cannot be lightly deviated from without any strong reasons. 26. Here, Section 21(2) notice itself, did not give the persons interested the minimum prescribed time to lodge objections. Though such a contention may no longer hold good now, the impugned Award deserves to be set aside, because no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner or its advocate before the impugned Award was made.” The petitioner, in the case at hand, has submitted his objections to the final notification. Therefore, Section 21 permits the petitioner to be heard, more so, in the light of the fact of gross variations with the extent of acquisition insofar as the award and the actual acquisition. Written objections though filed by the petitioner and appears to have been considered, it would not be in compliance with the mandate of the statute which requires personal hearing to be granted. In the case before the High Court of Bombay written objections were though filed it was held that written objections being filed by the Advocate would not mean that there is compliance with the mandate of personal hearing. There is no document produced to show that the inquiry has been conducted under Section 23 of the Act, after following the procedure under Section 21 of the Act in the case at hand. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed . The award Notice dated30-05-2023 and the endorsement dated 09-08-2023 stand quashed. (ii) Mandamus issues to the respondent/State to hear the petitioner as obtaining under Section 21(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and then redraw the award in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. (iii) This order shall be complied with within three months from the date of the order.