IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3002 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 5, 2010 Bijender Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mrs. Shallie Taneja, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notifications dated 15.12.2006 and 18.10.2007 (P-2 & P-4), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) as well as Award, dated 14.3.2008 (P-5). The respondent State of Haryana has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for sector dividing road between Sector 7 and 37 Rohtak and part periphery road (falling on the north of Sector 7, Rohtak), residential, commercial, public and semi-public as shown in the plan under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in the area of village Rohtak, H.B. No. 74, Tehsil and District Rohtak. CWP No. 3002 of 2010 It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question was passed on 14.3.2008 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 2.2.2010. 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 subject matter of the instant petition. It is conceded position on record that the award in the present case has already been announced on 14.3.2008 before filing of the instant petition. 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, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 5, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2