The acquisition process must comply with statutory provisions of timely final notification and personal hearing, failure of which undermines legal validity.

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. 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 t