Personal hearing is a statutory requirement under Section 21(2) of the Act; failure to provide this violates natural justice and invalidates any acquisition award.

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. 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