RSA No.4692 of 2003 (1 ) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No.4692 of 2003 Date of decision:11.02.2008. Pargat Singh and others .... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents. RSA No.4693 of 2003 Date of decision: 11.02.2008. Malook Singh and others ... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. Present: Mr. SC Kapoor, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Rajive Kawatra, Senior D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI -- RSA No.4692 of 2003 (2 ) PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Since the question of facts and law involved in these two appeals are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. The plaintiff-appellants herein filed suits for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and consequential award passed under Section 11 of the Act in respect to the acquisition of the land comprising in khasra No.785 min, 786, 787 and 788, wherein the plaintiffs claim to have constructed a dera for the last 15 years before the filing of the suit. The challenge to the notifications was on variety of grounds including that under the Govt. policy constructed property is to be excluded from the acquisition. The Collector has passed the award on 07.05.1992 in contravention of such policy. The defendant-respondents resisted the suit on the ground that the same is not maintainable and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 11.01.1993:- 1 Whether the impugned notifications and award are illegal, null and void qua the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPD 3. Relief. However, on 26.11.1996, the issues were re-framed by the learned trial which are as under:- 1. Whether the proceedings of acquisition of the suit land are illegal, RSA No.4692 of 2003 (3 ) null and void against law and liable to be set aside and ignored as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether award is also illegal discriminatory, arbitrary and null and void, as alleged? OPP 3. If issues No.1 and 2 proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the civi Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief. The issue regarding jurisdiction was treated as preliminary issue, but thereafter with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the same was also ordered to be decided alongwith the other issues. The defendant-respondents came forward to release portion of the property under acquisition measuring one bigha and one biswa on the ground that the same is constructed portion. However, the acquisition continued in respect of the land/property which has resulted in passing of the final award under Section 11 of the Act. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record, declined the relief claimed by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001. An appeal preferred therefrom also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide his judgment and decree dated 23.05.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. The main question which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is that under the Government policy, the RSA No.4692 of 2003 (4 ) constructed portion is to be exempted from the acquisition. On the basis of the aforesaid plea, this Court on 27.01.2005, passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the appellants states that State of Haryana is not consistent in its policy of exempting constructed areas and while some constructed areas are exempted, as noticed by the apex Court in Sube Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2001, Supreme Court, 3285, in other cases such policy is not followed, which gives rise to corruption. Let Secretary, Urban Development, Haryana file an affidavit in this regard before the next date. List on 7.3.2005.” In response to the aforesaid order, Mr. D.S. Dhesi, Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Urban Estates Department, Chandigarh, filed an affidavit dated 07.09.2007. It has been stated in the affidavit that there is no specific policy for the release of the land under acquisition. It is, however, stated that pursuant to the directions of the High Court dated 16.07.2005 in CWP No.10845 of 2004, a policy was framed by the State of Haryana which is applicable to the petitioners of that case only. Copy of that policy is placed on record as Annexure R-1 and last paragraph 5 of that policy indicates that the same is applicable only to the petitioners in CWP mentioned herein above. Apart from that, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit it has also been stated that no land in village Patti Taraf Insar, Tehsil Panipat, has been released under any policy as there RSA No.4692 of 2003 (5 ) is no policy for the release of the land. No other policy has been placed on record by the plaintiff-appellants to indicate that the State Government had, at any time, formulated any policy which, inter-alia, exempted the constructed area of the land sought to be acquired. The policy Annexure R- 1 has not been challenged in any manner. It is the admitted position on record that when the suit was filed, final award had already been passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. In the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others, AIR 2000, Supreme Court, 671, in paragraph 17, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- “17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of recent cases (C. Padma V. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N., reported in (1997) 2 SCC 627). This Court observed as below:- “The admitted position is that prusuant to the notification published under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in GOR No.1392 industries, dated 17.10.1962, total extent of 6 acres 41 cents of land in Madhavaram village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpatta District in Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the manufacture of Synthetic Rasiua by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras. The RSA No.4692 of 2003 (6 ) acquisition proceedings had become final and possession of the land was taken on 30.4.1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed by the company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance Co. which is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally had ownership, was transferred in G.O. Ms. No.816 Industries, dated 24.3.1971 in favour of another subsidiary company, Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent which is also another subsidiary of the company had requested for two acres 75 cents of land; the same came to be assigned on leasehold basis by the Government after resumption in terms of the agreement in G.O. Ms. No.439 Industries, dated 10.5.1985. In G.O. Ms. No.546 Industries, dted 30.3.1986, the same came to be approved of. Then the appellants challenged the original G.O.Ms.1392 Industries, dated 17.10.1962 contending that since the original purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to be in operation, the appellants are entitled to restitution of the possession taken from them. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have held RSA No.4692 of 2003 (7 ) that the acquired land having already vested in the State, after receipt of compensation, by the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have no right to challenge the notification. Thus, the writ petition and the writ appeal came to be dismissed.” The ratio of the aforesaid judgment is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The award having been passed, no challenge to the acquisition is permissible. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 11.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO