CWP No.67 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No.67 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.1.2011 Chander Singh ...Petitioner vs State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.Advocate General Haryana, for respondent No.1,2 and 4. Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Ashish Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.5. -- Jasbir Singh,J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a pryer to quash a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) on 3.10.2006, and also notification issued under section 6 of the Act on 1.10.2007. Notice issued under section 9 of the Act on 14.9.2009, is also under challenge. The petitioner has also laid challenge to an order dated 1.8.2008, vide which the respondents have refused to release his land from acquisition. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land measuring 1 bigha 19 biswas falling in khasra No.31//1. It is an admitted fact that about 10 biswas of land out of CWP No.67 of 2010 2 the land owned by the petitioner falls in the green belt. It is stated that one co-sharer, namely Bishamber sold his share of land to DLF-respondent No.5 before issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act and another co-sharer Rajinder entered into a collaboration agreement with respondent No.5 on 6.7.2007 i.e. after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. It is the grievance of the counsel for the petitioner that the land owned by both the aforesaid co-sharers was kept out of acquisition whereas his share was ordered to be acquired. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner, earlier also, filed CWP No.1992 of 2008, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.2.2008, with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for release of his land by invoking the provisions of section 48 of the Act. Direction was issued to the respondents to consider representation to be made by the petitioner. It is apparent from the record that thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Urban Estates Department, on 1.8.2008, relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “Vide order dated 11.02.2008, the Hon'ble High Court has directed that the representation made by the petitioner should be considered in terms of the policy of the State Government. The policy referred to in the orders of the Hon'ble High Court is the policy dated 26.10.2007. According to clause 2 of this policy “any request or application where structures have been constructed will only be considered for release under section 48 (1) provided the structure exists prior to Section 4 and is inhabited”. In the present case, petitioner has prayed that he had constructed a shop more than 10 years ago and the same has CWP No.67 of 2010 3 been rented out for a liquor shop. However, this contention of the petitioner has been proved to be totally incorrect. The DTP, Gurgaon had carried out an inspection of the site on 23.7.2008. The petitioner was also informed regarding the site inspection. As per DTP's report, no construction of any permanent nature is existing at site except a boundary wall of 3 feet height towards one side. In addition there is an advertisement hoarding which has been erected on the ground with an iron angle frame. The said erection is falling within 50M wide greet belt of NH-8. The DTP, Gurgaon has also enclosed photographs of the site. Therefore, it can be categorically concluded that neither the structure is existing at site nor is it inhabited. As such the benefit of policy dated 26.10.2007 cannot be given to the petitioner. As per the details furnished by DTP, Gurgaon, the total site of the petitioner is measuring 1965 sq.yards. Out of this 333.608 sq.yards is in the 50M green belt and 1632.64 sq. yards is out side the green belt. As informed by the CTP,HUDA this area can be utilized by HUDA for providing infrastructure like police post etc.” It has been noted by the authority concerned that no construction was in existence as alleged by the petitioner when notification under section 4 of the Act was issued. It is very surprising that after passing of the aforesaid order the petitioner kept mum and did not make any attempt to challenge that order and allowed the award to be pronounced on 30.9.2009. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed on 3.1.2010. We feel that at this belated stage as no action was taken by the petitioner before passing an award in this case, to challenge the impugned acquisition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is well settled that if a writ petition is filed after passing of an award, possibly the same cannot be entertained in view of ratio of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme CWP No.67 of 2010 4 Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bo,bay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council,Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000)2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Counsel for the petitioner also failed to make out a case of discrimination done to the petitioner. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 10, 2011 rk