Question

Under the law relating to land acquisition under the relevant laws in India, which of the following statements is not true?

• A. Such interested persons may file objections within 6 months of the notice having been issued.
• B. All persons interested in the land in question shall appear personally before the Collector.
• C. A minimum notice period of 30 days is to be given to all the persons interested.
• D. The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website.

Hint:

In procedural law questions, always remember the statutory timelines. Examiners frequently modify the actual time period to create an incorrect option.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: The acquisition process starts with a preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, after which anyone interested in the land gets a window to object to the area, suitability, or the stated public purpose.

Step 2: That objection window is fixed by Section 15 at sixty days from the date of the preliminary notification, not six months, so any statement stretching it to six months does not match the statute.

Step 3: Separately, Section 21 governs the hearing stage: the Collector must give at least thirty days' notice, publish it on the government or Collector's website along with newspapers and local announcements, and call every interested person to appear in person or through a representative to state their claim.

Step 4: Lining up each option against this timeline shows the 30-day notice, the website publication, and the personal appearance requirement all hold up, while only the six-month objection period fails to match the law.
\[ \boxed{\text{Filing objections within 6 months of the notice is the statement that is not true.}} \]

Answer 2

Another way to check these four statements is to think about why the 2013 Act was drafted the way it was, and weigh each option against that purpose, since the Act replaced the 1894 Land Acquisition Act specifically to make the process faster and more transparent for landowners.

1. Option A: A core reason for reform was to prevent acquisition proceedings from dragging on, so the legislature set the objection window at sixty days, short enough to keep the process moving while still giving affected persons a real chance to respond. A six-month window works against that purpose and does not appear anywhere in Section 15, so this option cannot be accurate.
2. Option B: Requiring interested persons to appear before the Collector personally or through a representative reflects the Act's emphasis on hearing affected people before final decisions are taken, exactly what Section 21 mandates. This is consistent with the statute.
3. Option C: The thirty-day minimum notice period gives people enough advance warning to prepare their claims, fitting both the statutory text of Section 21 and the goal of fair notice.
4. Option D: Publishing the notice online alongside newspapers and local postings furthers the Act's transparency objective, and this obligation is written directly into Section 21(2).

Weighed against both the statutory text and the reform-driven purpose of the 2013 Act, three of the four options describe genuine safeguards while the six-month objection period in Option A has no basis in the law.

Hence, the correct answer is Option A: Such interested persons may file objections within 6 months of the notice having been issued.