JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.

1. Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

“26B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the Land Acquisition Award dated 04.12.2020 passed by Respondent No.2 in relation to Case No.22/2019 regarding village Bitavaladia (West), Ta. Anjar, Dist. Kutch;

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to declare the land acquisition proceedings being Land Acquisition Case No.22/2019 to be illegal and unconstitutional and YOUR LORDSHIPS be further pleased to quash and set aside the same;”

2. Petitioner who claims to be the owner and occupier of land Survey No.190 of Village: Bitavaladia (West), Taluka: Anjar, District: Kutch, admeasuring Hector-Aare-Sq.Mt.1-02-00 i.e. 10,200 sq.mtrs., out of which the area of about 2612 sq.mtrs. has been acquired, has challenged the award passed and has sought for quashing the said award. For the purpose of alignment of Nagavaladiya Distributory of Kutch Branch Canal, requisition for land acquisition came to be moved by the Executive Engineer for distributory to supply water. On 5.8.2019, the State Government exempted the project under Section 10A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act’ for short) exempting the project from Chapter II and III of the Act.

3. Pursuant to the same, a preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act came to be issued on 16.10.2019 (Annexure-F) by the Additional Collector, Narmada inviting objections from interest persons. The Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded a communication giving details of the date of personal hearing. The notification under Section 19(1) issued on 16.10.2019 was published in local newspaper on 20.02.2020. Petitioner forwarded his objection on 20.03.2020 and personal hearing was fixed before the Collector as required under Section 21(2) of the Act on 10.6.2020. On 14.9.2020, petitioner is said to have forwarded representation to respondent Nos.1 to 3 pointing out division of the land in two parts contending thereunder that such acquisition could result in inconvenience being caused to the petitioner for usage of the land as it would be split into two parts amongst other grounds raised therein. On 04.12.2021, an award came to be passed. Hence, this writ application is filed for quashing of the acquisition proceedings.

4. We have heard arguments of Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGP appearing for the State. Perused the case papers.

5. It is the contention of Mr. N. M. Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that procedure to publish notification under Section 19 and Rule 21 and 23 of the Gujarat Rules, 2017 has not been followed fully and petitioner was not made known of the preliminary notification and thereby, it has affected the valuable right of the petitioner to file effective objections, he would also contend that even after publication of the notification in the newspaper to which petitioner filed objections, no notice of personal hearing was issued. He has further submitted that the notice issued under Section 21 was not served on the petitioner as required though respondent authorities knew the full address of the petitioner. He also contend that date of personal hearing fixed was to be given at least 30 days’ notice from the date of public notice, i.e. on 27.05.2020, however, the personal hearing was fixed on 10.06.2020. Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the communication dated 11.6.2020 of the Special Land Acquisition Officer addressed to the Executive Engineer to hold inquiry and to submit report which has not been done. He would also contend that on 27/31.07.2020, a communication was issued by the office of the Land Acquisition Officer addressed to the Deputy Director of Information to issue public notice under Section 21 regarding survey numbers of other parties who could not be served with the not