ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioners, in both these cases, call in question acquisition proceedings, pursuant to the final notification issued by the State seeking to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of Chikkamagaluru-Sakaleshpura New Broad Gauge Railway Project (‘the Project’ for short). 2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: - 2.1. The petitioners are owners of certain landed properties coming within the project. On 30-01-2019 the 2 nd respondent/ Deputy Commissioner issues 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). The 3 rd respondent/Special Land Acquisition Officer issues notices to the petitioners in terms of gazette notification dated 28-02-2019 which was issued after issuance of preliminary notification. In terms of notices so issued, the petitioners were to submit their objections on or before 08-08-2019 and an opportunity of hearing was to be granted to the petitioners on 21-08-2019 in terms of the notification. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.19828 of 2024 communicate to the respondents seeking adequate compensation for the lands where railway tracks of the project were to be laid. This was in reply to the notice so issued. When things stood thus, the Government then issued an endorsement holding that the period of issuing and publishing the final notification which was to expire on 26-08-2022 would be extended up to 27-09-2023. 2.2. In the interregnum, the petitioners file objections on 14-02-2023 and 13-02-2023, objecting to the omission of 50 Silver trees and 140 Coffee plants in W.P.No.19828 of 2024 and 350 silver trees in W.P.No.14082 of 2024 on the acquired land, in the award notice so issued. The petitioners then represent on 20-07-2023 opposing the award notice comprehensively holding that it was illegal on the part of the 3 rd respondent in deciding the compensation that is to be paid to these petitioners. When the representations go unheeded, the petitioners are now at the doors of this Court in the subject petition, calling in question the notification so issued, seeking to acquire the lands of these petitioners, inter alia, on the score that it is in violation of the mandate of the Act. 3. When the representations go unheeded, the petitioners are now at the doors of this Court in the subject petition, calling in question the notification so issued, seeking to acquire the lands of these petitioners, inter alia, on the score that it is in violation of the mandate of the Act. 3. Heard Sri Karthik S.Tayur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Spoorthy Hegde N, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 in both the petitions and Sri M.N.Kumar, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8 in Writ Petition No.19828 of 2024. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that what is challenged in the subject petitions is twin fold. The learned counsel would take this Court through the provisions of the Act, with particular reference to sub-section (7) of Section 19, which mandates that acquisition should be completed within one year from the date of issuance of preliminary notification. The other fold of illegality, the learned counsel submits is, that Section 21(2) of the Act mandates personal hearing to be granted to these land owners, which admittedly in the case had not happened and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are bad in law. He would seek to place reliance on certain judgments of coordinate benches of this Court and other High Court judgments, all of which would bear consideration qua their relevance in the course of the order. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the petitioners through their Advocates have filed objections before the Deputy Commissioner on receipt of notices from the hands of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and there is a notification issued extending the time limit of conclusion of acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 19 of the Act itself. Therefore, both the provisions upon which the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance have been complied with in the case at hand. He would submit that petitions be dismissed as wanting in merit. 6. The learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel Sri M.N. Kumar appearing for the Railways would toe the lines of the learned High Court Government Pleader. He would further submit that the project is now stifled mid-stream and it has to be completed as early as possible, as it is the project in public interest. 6. The learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel Sri M.N. Kumar appearing for the Railways would toe the lines of the learned High Court Government Pleader. He would further submit that the project is now stifled mid-stream and it has to be completed as early as possible, as it is the project in public interest. He would also seek dismissal of the petitions. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue revolves round interpretation of two provisions of the Act. The petitioners claim to be owners of the properties which become the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose as indicated hereinabove. The preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act is issued on 30-01-2019. 60 days’ time is granted for objections, if any, to the preliminary notification. On 06-06-2019 the Special Land Acquisition Officer issues notices to the petitioners qua the said acquisition proceedings as afore-indicated. The purpose of issuance of notice is as follows: It calls for objections from all the stake holders or the land owners and also indicated that on 21-08-2019 inquiry or consideration of objections would take place. The last date for filing of objections was 08-08-2019. The petitioners, though did not object to the acquisition, gave a representation which reads as follows: All these culminated in issuance of a final notification and determination of compensation and issuance of award notices. One of the award notices so issued on 30-05-2023 under Section 37(2) of the Act is as follows: In reply to the award notices, the petitioners file their representations/objections. The objections resulted in an endorsement. The endorsement is common to both the petitioners in both these petitions. One such endorsement dated 09-08-2023 reads as follows: It is after the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioners are before this Court, on the submissions as afore-noted. 9.1. The first fold is with regard to non-compliance with Section 19 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act reads as follows: “ 19. One such endorsement dated 09-08-2023 reads as follows: It is after the aforesaid endorsement, the petitioners are before this Court, on the submissions as afore-noted. 9.1. The first fold is with regard to non-compliance with Section 19 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act reads as follows: “ 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). (2) The Collector shall publish a summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme along with draft declaration referred to in sub-section (1): Provided that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless the summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is published along with such declaration: Provided further that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless the Requiring Body deposits an amount, in full or part, as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government toward the cost of acquisition of the land: Provided also that the Requiring Body shall deposit the amount promptly so as to enable the appropriate Government to publish the declaration within a period of twelve months from the date of the publication of preliminary notification under Section 11. (3) In projects where land is acquired in stages, the application for acquisition itself can specify different stages for the rehabilitation and resettlement, and all declarations shall be made according to the stages so specified. (3) In projects where land is acquired in stages, the application for acquisition itself can specify different stages for the rehabilitation and resettlement, and all declarations shall be made according to the stages so specified. (4) Every declaration referred to in sub-section (1) shall be published in the following manner, namely:— (a) in the Official Gazette; (b) in two daily newspapers being circulated in the locality, of such area of which one shall be in the regional language; (c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil; (d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government; (e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) Every declaration referred to in sub-section (1) shall indicate,— (a) the district or other territorial division in which the land is situated; (b) the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area; and (c) where a plan shall have been made for the land, the place at which such plan may be inspected without any cost. (6) The declaration referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence that the land is required for a public purpose and, after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in such manner as specified under this Act. (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.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 19 of the Act mandates publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement which would mean completion of acquisition proceedings once they commence from preliminary to the final and resultant award. Sub-section (7) mandates that where no declaration under sub-section (1) is made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded. There are three provisos attached to the said provision. The first proviso deals with computing the period of 12 months. The second proviso empowers appropriate Government to extend the period of 12 months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same. The third proviso indicates that if any decision to extend the period of 12 months is to be taken, it should be on reasons recorded in writing and the same to be notified and be uploaded on the website of the Authority concerned. 9.2. As observed, the first fold revolves round sub-section (7) of Section 19. Therefore, two dates assume significance i.e., the date of preliminary notification and the date of final notification. The date of preliminary notification was on 30-01-2019 and the final notification was on 18-01-2023 which is admittedly beyond the period of 12 months as is indicated in sub-section (7) of Section 19. It is undoubtedly extendable in terms of the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 19. Whether there is compliance with the mandate of the proviso is required to be noticed. The preliminary notification which was said to expire on 26-08-2022 was extended on 15-09-2022. The notification of extension reads as follows: The time was extended up to 26-02-2023. On 18-01-2023 comes the final notification. 9.3. The issue now would be, whether the notification dated 15-09-2022 is in tune with the aforesaid provisions. The interpretation of sub-section (7) of Section 19 of the Act need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the mater. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C.H. CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA , Writ Petition No.3768 of 2023 decided on 22-04-2024 , has held as follows: “…. …. …. 2. A notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) dated 23.04.2020 was published in the Gazette on 24.04.2020. 3. Approval of the State Government was granted under Section 15(3) of the 2013 Act. 4. …. …. 2. A notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) dated 23.04.2020 was published in the Gazette on 24.04.2020. 3. Approval of the State Government was granted under Section 15(3) of the 2013 Act. 4. On 23.02.2021, the Deputy Commissioner sought for extension of time to issue the declaration under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act and this request was approved by the Additional Chief Secretary on 16.03.2021. 5. It is not in dispute that though an order came to be passed on 29.03.2021, the said order was not notified in the Gazette. The extension that was sought to be granted was for publication of the declaration from 05.03.2021 to 05.06.2021. 6. It is also not in dispute that the period of 12 months prescribed under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act was on 23.04.2021, by which time an order had been passed extending the time till 05.06.2021, but the said order was not notified as required under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act. 7. It is also stated by the learned AAG that there were two subsequent notifications issued extending the time to publish the declaration on 30.06.2021 and 22.09.2021 and subsequently, a declaration was issued on 01.10.2021, i.e,.within a period of 12 months. 8. Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act reads as follows: - “19 (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 of 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. As could be seen from the above, the statutory provision declares that a declaration under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act, if not made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification, shall be deemed to have been rescinded. Therefore, the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, by operation of law will stood rescinded if the declaration is not made within 12 months. 10. For this rescission of the preliminary notification, the only requirement is the inaction on the part of the State in issuing the declaration. There are 3 provisos to Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act: the first proviso which relates to exclusion of time in the event of any interim order granted by the Court, will not be applicable to this case because admittedly there is no interim order granted which impeded the issuance of declaration 11. The second proviso confers power on the Government to extend the period of 12 months if in its opinion there are circumstances which justify the extension. 12. However, this power is circumscribed by third proviso which categorically states that the decision to extend the period should be: (a) recorded in writing; and (b) notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. 13. It is therefore clear that though the Government has been conferred with the power to extend the period of 12 months it is required to comply with two requirements, which by the language of the third proviso, makes is mandatory. 14. The first obligation under the third proviso is to notify the decision which is recorded in writing to extend the time prescribed for issuance of the declaration. The term “notification” has been defined under Section 3(v) of the Act and reads as follows: “notification” means a notification published in the Gazette of India or, as the case may be, the Gazette of a State and the expression “notify” shall be construed accordingly; 15. It is thus clear that in order to take the benefit of power to extend the period of 12 months provided under the second proviso, the State Government is obliged, mandatorily, to publish the order which is recorded in writing to an extent the period of 12 months. If this Notification is not published in the Gazette, by virtue of the phrase used in 12(7) “be deemed to have been rescinded” would automatically come into operation. 16. If this Notification is not published in the Gazette, by virtue of the phrase used in 12(7) “be deemed to have been rescinded” would automatically come into operation. 16. To put it in simple words, if the decision to extend the period to issue a declaration is not recorded and notified, by operation of law, the preliminary Notification is deemed to have been rescinded. In this view of the matter, in the instant case, since the decision to extend the period of 12 months has not been notified in the Gazette, the preliminary Notification stood automatically rescinded 17. However, learned Additional Advocate General sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Roy and Others vs. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Limited And Others, (2009)5 SCC 242 to contend that the petitioner had made a claim for compensation and he had, therefore, waived a right to challenge the acquisition. It is to be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case was not considering a provision which was in pari materia in Section 19(7) and, therefore, that decision would not have any application. 18. It is also to be noticed that there is no question of waiver of the operation of law by the land loser, in case the preliminary Notification is, by law, deemed to have been rescinded. If the Notification issued under Section 11 stands statutorily rescinded, the question as to whether the petitioner waived his right to challenge the acquisition or not would be irrelevant. 19. In that view of the matter, the above said argument cannot be accepted. As a consequence, the impugned Notifications are quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed .” (Emphasis supplied) The coordinate Bench interprets sub-section (7) of Section 19 of the Act. The order of extension was found to be contrary to the proviso, as it was not notified in the official gazette. The extension sought to be granted was for publication of final notification. As it was not done within 12 months period, the acquisition proceedings were quashed and liberty was reserved to the State Government to initiate proceedings afresh. 9.4. Later, another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K. GANGANNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA , Writ Petition No.21451 of 2023 decided on 09-12-2024 , considering this very provision has held as follows: “…. …. …. 9.4. Later, another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K. GANGANNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA , Writ Petition No.21451 of 2023 decided on 09-12-2024 , considering this very provision has held as follows: “…. …. …. 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 writpetitioners 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. 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 whatthey have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action.” 6. 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 whatthey 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. 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. 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 willful 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9.5. In the light of the judgments rendered by two of the Coordinate Benches, one quashing acquisition proceedings itself on the ground that the procedure for extension of time was not followed by the State and the other upholding the acquisition notwithstanding the extension not being passed within the time limit prescribed under sub-section (7) of Section 19. What is necessary to be considered is any interpretation of the said provision should not lead to stifling of acquisition proceedings. The acquisition proceedings must be upheld, particularly when it is for public purpose. In the case at hand, it is undoubtedly for public purpose i.e., laying of a railway line. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that laying of the railway line has been stopped due to the interim order subsisting in the case at hand. The procedure that is not followed in extension is by the State Government. The railway line would benefit scores and scores of people and therefore, this Court must not interfere with the acquisition. This is what is considered by the subsequent judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of K.Ganganna. It being a later judgment of the Coordinate Bench, I deem it appropriate to follow the same in so far as the first ground projected by the petitioners qua violation of sub-section (7) of section 19 of the Act. I, therefore, hold that the acquisition does not get vitiated on account of the semblance of aberration that is projected by the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the extension has not taken place within the time frame, but nonetheless, there is a gazette notification of extension. 10. The other statutory violation projected is, violation of 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. (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.” (Emphasis supplied) 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. 11. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 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 petitioners, the land loser. 12. 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 mentioned in 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 the 2013 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 Shah 2 the 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. (Emphasis supplied) The petitioners, in the cases at hand, have submitted their objections to the final notification. Therefore, Section 21 permits the petitioners 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 petitioners 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, albeit in part. The challenge to the acquisition fails, but the challenge to the violation of Section 21 of the Act succeeds. ORDER (i) Writ Petitions are allowed in part. (ii) The acquisition stands sustained. (iii) Mandamus issues to the respondent/State to hear the petitioners 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. (iv) This order shall be complied with within three months from the date of the order.