IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6806 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 25, 2008 Chanan Dass and another …Petitioners Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notifications dated 27.4.2006 (P-1 & P-2) issued under Sections 3(1) of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of right of user in land) Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and notices dated 14.6.2006 (P-3 & P-4) whereby the Central Government sought to acquire land in public interest for laying a pipeline i.e. RLNG Spur Pipeline from Dadri of Uttar Pradesh State to Panipat of Haryana State for the purpose of transportation of natural gas by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Subsequently, notifications under Section 6(1) of the Act have been issued on 15.11.2006 (P-7 & P-8) followed by notices dated 18.12.2006 (P-9 & P-10). The objections to the notices dated 14.6.2006, were filed on 4.7.2006 (P-5 C.W.P. No. 6806 of 2008 & P-6). It is also an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed before the filing of the instant petition, which has been filed on 23.4.2008. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that there is no ground made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. Award in the present case has already been announced 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 was taken and it is deemed to be vested 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 Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. There is thus, no ground to interfere. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 25, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2