IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18160 of 2006 Date of Decision: May 22, 2008 Chand Ram and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Alok Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 18160 of 2006 and 14706 of 2007, which have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging acquisition proceedings arising out of notification dated 17.11.1989 (P-5), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), declaration dated 16.11.1990, under Section 6 of the Act and also the supplementary award dated 4.8.2005 (P-10). The facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 18160 of 2006. C.W.P. No. 18160 of 2006 It remains undisputed that the petitioners had earlier filed C.W.P. No. 8884 of 1991, which was dismissed on 23.8.1993 by a detailed order, which reads thus:- “Acquisition of the land of the petitioner has been challenged on some alleged policy decision of Haryana Government not to acquire the land on which construction had been raised. In para 6 of the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been stated that there is no general policy not to acquire the constructed area but in this particular case, land measuring 0.1 Marla was left out of the acquisition as the same was having construction before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. It has been further stated that the remaining land has been acquired for the public purpose. The point raised in this petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shamsher Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others C.W.P. No. 11387 of 1990 decided on 23.8.1993. In view of the said Division Bench decision, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.” However, the petitioners have filed these petitions on the ground that supplementary award with regard to super-structure has been announced after inordinate delay on 4.8.2005 (P-10). Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the report of the Joint Inspection Committee, dated 27.5.2005 (P- 3), which has recommended for release of area, and has claimed that 2 C.W.P. No. 18160 of 2006 certain area has been released. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the land on the recommendations made by the Committee has been released from acquisition. Be that as it may, the petitioners, according to the written statement, have not even filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act at that time. Moreover, it is well settled that supplementary award can be announced after a period of two years and the remedy for the petitioner, available under the law, is to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. In that regard we place reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sharan Pal Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 683. In view of above, these petitions fail and accordingly the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 22, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3