IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2038 of 1989 Date of decision: 19.05.2010 Suresh Chand Gupta and another ….Petitioners versus State of Haryana through Secretary to Government, Haryana, Urban Estates Department, Chandigarh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4(1) has been issued on 13.03.1981 and Section 6 declaration has been made on 21.11.1983. The writ petition has been filed in the year 1989 but none appears today when the matter is called for the petitioners. With the benefit of the assistance of Shri Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of the State, I have gone through the records to proceed to pass the following order. 2. He points out to me that the award had been passed pursuant to the notification and declaration after the enquiry on 23.09.1986. He Civil Writ Petition No.2038 of 1989 - 2 - contends that the notification issued under Section 4 and 6 cannot be a subject of challenge after the award was passed. The non-maintainability of a challenge to notifications after an award had been passed under Land Acquisition Act has been laid down through several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan-(2008) 4 SCC 695, it was specifically held that challenge to Sector 4 notification is incompetent after the award and after the property is taken possession. The issue of delay and laches as grounds for refusing the relief through a writ petition challenging acquisition was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another Versus Shah Hyder Beig and others-(2000) 2 SCC 48, and the same view has held in Usha Adlakha Versus State of Haryana-1996(2) PLR 407. The writ petition itself is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.05.2010. sanjeev