CWP No.2018 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: April 6, 2010 1. CWP No. 2018 of 2010 Naurang Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents 2. CWP No. 3023 of 2010 Arvind Kumar Gupta and another …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents 3. CWP No.20561 of 2009 Rekha Garg .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for HSIDC Ms.Shallie Tanjea, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned petitions because the challenge in these petitions has been made to the same notifications dated 13.2.2008 and 31.12.2008, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The respondent State of Haryana has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of the Industrial Model Township, Rohtak, to be planned and CWP No.2018 of 2010 2 developed as an integrated complex for industrial, transport and other public utilities etc. by the Haryana Infrasturcture Development Corporation Ltd. . It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question was passed before filing of these petitions, which were filed on 4.2.2010, 18.2.2010 and 23.12.20092 respectively. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings which are subject matter of these petitions. It is conceded position on record that the award in the present case has already been announced before filing of the petitions. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land, free from all encumbrances was taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. In view of above, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 6, 2010 JUDGE okg