CWP No.18708 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18708 of 2011 Date of Decision: 04.10.2011 Ashok Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Notification dated 30.05.2005 issued under Section 4 (Annexure P-1) and notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the 'Act')on 22.05.2006 (Annexure P-2). It is conceded as a fact that the award has already been passed in July 2007. The aforementioned fact has been conceded by Mr. Mamli during the course of the hearing. After passing of the award, the possession is also taken in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. 2. It is well settled that no petition is maintainable after the award is passed and the possession of the land is taken because the land vests in the State. So there is no possibility even otherwise to exercise jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act to release the land. CWP No.18708 of 2011 -2- 3. For the aforementioned reasons, we place reliance on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Ltd. (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. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 04.10.2011 manju