IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.114 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.2.2010 Braham Parkash & others. -----Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition of the appellants against proceedings for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). 2. It is undisputed that while appellant No.1 was owner of the land prior to acquisition, appellant No.2 Zonex Estates Pvt. Ltd. purchased the land under acquisition on 16.8.2005 after notification for acquisition was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.9.2004. Thereafter, it entered into a collaboration agreement with appellants No.3 MGF Developments Ltd. and appellant No.4 EMAAR MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. Appellant No.1 LPA No.114 of 2010 having sold the land had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings and his name appears to have been added as the writ petitioner only to overcome the difficulty of other appellants who are apparently property dealers and who have come into the picture after initiation of acquisition proceedings. 3. It is well settled that after acquisition proceedings are initiated, only right which purchaser acquires is to get compensation and there is no right to question acquisition. Reference may be made to judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177, Gian Chand v. Gopala (1995) 2 SCC 528, Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 1 SCC 334, Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426, M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. The State of Haryana & others (1996) 11 SCC 698, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (1996) 3 SCC 124 and Ajay Krishan Shinghal etc. v. Union of India & others AIR 1996 SC 2677. 4. Learned Single Judge set aside the acquisition proceedings on the ground that dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by invoking urgency provisions was not called for, making exception for certain categories, including cases of those who came into picture after initiation of acquisition proceedings by notification dated 17.9.2004. Case of the appellants being covered by the excepted category, the writ petition was dismissed. 2 LPA No.114 of 2010 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Ahmed Nagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others 2000(2) SCC 48, which has been relied upon by learned Single Judge, is distinguishable. He also submits that writ petition was filed before the award and compensation had not been received and observation to the contrary was incorrect. 7. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge in non-suiting the appellants on the ground that they came into the picture after initiation of acquisition proceedings. The said view is consistent with law laid down in judgments referred to in para 2 above. In this view of the matter, other points raised by learned counsel do not require consideration. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 01, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3