CWP No. 12652 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12652 of 2009 Date of decision 25 .2.2010 Sunil Dagar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RS Tacoria ,Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 15.6.2006 (P.4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration issued thereafter on 14.6.2007 (P.8) made under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner is stated to have filed objections on 14.7.2006 (P5) under Section 5A of the Act. In order to succeed for the relief sought, the petitioner has placed reliance on policy dated 26.10.2007 (P.6) framed by the respondent- State aimed at releasing the built up structure from acquisition. It has also come on record that notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 7.5.2008 and award was announced on 24.4.2009 as is evident from the perusal of para 18 of the written statement filed by respondent no.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. According to the learned counsel the constructed area on the land in dispute should have been released from acquisition as has been done in CWP No. 12652 of 2009 2 some other cases in pursuance of policy dated 26.10.2007. According to the learned counsel the action of the respondents in not releasing the land of the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that no writ petition is maintainable after the announcement of the award. It has remained undisputed before us that the award has been announced on 24.4.2009 whereas the instant petition was filed on 17.8.2009. Once the award has been announced and possession of the land has been taken by way of entry of Rapat Roznamcha then the land free from all encumbrances vest in the State and no power under Section 48 of the Act for release of the land from acquisition could be exercised. For the aforesaid proposition, we may place reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Star Wire (India ) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar v.Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48 ;C.Padma v. Dy. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 SCC 627 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd v. State of Rajasthan JT 2008(2) SC 280. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The other argument of Mr. Taccoria, learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. A perusal of objections filed by the petitioner on 14.7.2006 P.5) would show that land of the petitioner is vacant land described as residential plot in para 2(i). It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has been living in a rented accommodation. Therefore, there is no question of construction on the land in dispute. It follows that policy dated 26.10.2007 (P6) aimed at releasing the built up structure would not be attracted. Hence even on merits, the writ petition is without any substance. CWP No. 12652 of 2009 3 For the reasons afore mentioned this petition does not warrant admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 25.2.2010 Judge okg