Regular Second Appeal No. 556 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 556 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 26, 2009 Smt. Phool Wati and another ......... Appellant versus Haryana Urban Development Authority .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction in respect of plot Nos. 58 and 59 measuring 59 sq. yards and 105 sq. yards respectively was dismissed. The plaintiffs have purportedly purchased the aforesaid plots vide registered sale deeds dated 18.06.1991 and mutation was sanctioned on 15.1.1993. The case set up by the defendant is that the land which is subject matter of purchase was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) published on 23.11.1992. Award No. 14 dated 18.11.1995 was announced and compensation was deposited. Therefore, the land which was purchased by the plaintiffs vest with the State and consequently the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs have purchased the property prior to the publication of Regular Second Appeal No. 556 of 2009 [2] notification but no notice was served upon the appellants under section 9 of the Act, therefore, acquisition proceedings initiated against the appellants are not tenable. The suit challenging the acquisition proceedings on account of non service of notice has been filed on or before 14.05.2002 after the award was announced on 18.11.1995. The learned First Appellate Court has relied upon a number of judgments to return a finding that after the award is announced challenge to the acquisition proceedings is not maintainable as the land vests with the State Government free from all encumbrances. The learned First Appellate Court has also found that the civil suit challenging the acquisition proceedings is also not maintainable. The reasoning given by the learned First Appellate Court in dismissing the suit cannot be said to be unreasonable, unfair or unwarranted. The suit land vested with the State Government with the announcement of award on 18.11.1995. Such vesting of land is sought to be disputed in the year 2002. For the reasons recorded in the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. August 26, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE