IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 2198 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 8, 2010 Balraj and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate and Assistant Solicitor General of India, with Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings for acquisition of their land, which were initiated by issuance of notification dated 9.6.2009, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration made on 3.11.2009, under Section 6 of the Act (P-3 & P-4 respectively). The Collector has announced the award on 7.1.2010 (P-6). The instant petition has been filed on 5.2.2010. At the time of announcement of award on 7.1.2010, the possession of the acquired land CWP No. 2198 of 2010 was taken. It was handed over to the Senior Manager, GAIL India Limited, New Delhi. The entry concerning announcement of award and handing over of possession was duly made in the Rapat Roznamcha Waqyati of Patwari Halqua, vide Rapat No. 289, dated 7.1.2010. Accordingly, the land vests in the State of Haryana and on transfer in GAIL India Limited, free from all encumbrances. 2. In the written statement filed by the respondents it has been clarified that GAIL India Limited is a public company within the meaning of Section 2(ee) of the Act and the land acquired by the State for execution of any public purpose through any State Agency or Corporation would be absolutely valid. The respondents have also pleaded delay and laches, inasmuch as, the instant petition has been filed after about a month of the announcement of award. 3. Mr. Adarsh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised twofold submissions before us. Firstly he has argued that the public purpose of installation of compressor station in village Chhainsa 202, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, was sought to be executed by the Government itself, as is evident from the notification dated 9.6.2009 (P-3) and declaration made on 3.11.2009 (P-4). There is no indication that the land was being acquired for GAIL India Limited and this fact was revealed only when award was announced on 7.1.2010 (P-6). Secondly, he has submitted that the right of the petitioners to file objection has been seriously prejudiced because of suppressing of this vital information from the petitioners when notification dated 9.6.2009, under Section 4 of the Act was issued (P-3). Had the factum of acquisition of land for GAIL India Limited disclosed then objections could have been filed that the GAIL India Limited had made attempt to purchase the land by negotiation, as is reflected by the 2 CWP No. 2198 of 2010 sale deeds dated 4.8.2009 and 24.11.2009 (P-7 and P-8 respectively). 4. Mr. S.S. Pattar and Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu have jointly argued that the instant petition is not maintainable as it has been filed after announcement of award when the possession of the land has been taken, which now vests free from all encumbrances in the State. They have further submitted that no legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court, has been committed either in the procedure provided by the Act or otherwise. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed because no writ petition after the announcement of award and taking of possession of the acquired land would be maintainable. It is admitted position that the award was announced on 7.1.2010 and the instant petition was filed on 5.2.2010. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (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. 6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the cause of the petitioners has suffered a setback, inasmuch as, they were not able to file objections under Section 5A of the Act because it was not disclosed in either of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act that the land was required for GAIL India Limited. The aforesaid argument lacks merit because the land is always acquired by the State for a 3 CWP No. 2198 of 2010 public purpose. It is a different matter that the execution of the public purpose on the acquired land may be achieved by any other governmental agencies or a public corporation like GAIL India Limited. In that regard reliance may be placed on a 7-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, AIR 1973 SC 689. The aforesaid view is expressed in para 18 of the judgment, which is evident from the following extract:- “18. …… It seems to us that it is quite clear, especially in view of Section 17A as inserted by para 6 of the Schedule, that the Acquisition will be by the Government and it is only on payment of the cost of acquisition to the government that the lands vest in the Trust. It is true that the acquisition is for the Trust and may be at its instance, but nevertheless the acquisition is by the Government.” 7. Once the land is acquired by the State then public corporation within the meaning of Section 2(ee) of the Act can be entrusted with the job of executing the public purpose. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners merely on that account. Therefore, the writ petition is wholly without merit. The other argument that the petitioners could have raised the objection of purchasing the land by negotiation would also not require any detailed consideration because in case of public corporation there is no mandate of law that they must acquire the land by negotiation. The State can legally resort to acquisition for execution of a public purpose and transfer the land to a public corporation like GAIL India Limited. The argument is without any substance and the same is hereby rejected. 8. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 4 CWP No. 2198 of 2010 (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 8, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 5