CWP No.3806 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 3806 of 2006 Date of decision 3.4.2008 Kishan Dass and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate with Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ashish Kapoor,Addl. AG Haryana M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for quashing notification dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P.9) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure P.11) issued under Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to notice that award in the instant case was announced on 5.3.2006 which was two days earlier to the filing of the instant petition. It is admitted position that the instant petition was filed on 7.3.2006 which was returned with an objection and the same was re-filed on 8.3.2006 which came up for hearing on 9.3.2006. On the basis of already pending petition namely CWP No. 2946 of 2006, notice of motion was issued alongwith CWP No.3806 of 2006 2 interim directions in those very terms which were issued in the bunch of other connected matters including CWP No.2946 of 2006. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, learned State counsel at the outset has pointed out that award in this case was announced on 6.3.2006 before the filing of petition. He has further pointed out that Rajiv Gandhi Education City is being developed in the multi functional urban complex right on National Highway No.1 at Sonepat which is likely to have top class infrastructure and support services to attract world class educational institutes to open their campuses there. It has been asserted that the project is part of an endeavour to invite the world's best education talent in this era of globalization by developing this education city as a hub of learning. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that it has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that no writ petition would be competent after the announcement of award. For the afore-mentioned view, we place reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698, Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48 and C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadhu (1997)2 SCC 627. We are further of the view that the land is being acquired for a laudable purpose of establishing education city in the Multi Functional Urban Complex which is situated on the National Highway 1 in Sonepat. The education city is being developed as a knowledge city which is likely to have top class infrastructure and support services to attract world class educational institutes to open their campuses there. The effort is to attract the world's best education talent in this era and make the education city as CWP No.3806 of 2006 3 hub of learning by taking the maximum advantage of gloablisation. Therefore, interference of the Court in such a project would not be warranted. Moreover, the impugned notifications dated 17.11.2005 and 7.2.2006 ( Annexures P.9 and P.11 respectively) were subject matter of challenge before this Court and the Division Bench vide order dated 18.2.2008 dismissed CWP No.3927 of 2006 'Mahavir Chaudhary and others v. State of Haryana and others' . For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 3 .4.2008 Judge okg