CWP No. 16652 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16652 of 2008 Date of decision 18 Satish Chander ......Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Dr. Pawan Kumar Aryan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG. Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1. To be reffered to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the Acquisition proceedings inititated vide Notification dated 2.05.01 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') and declaration made on 11.5.2001 under Section 6 of the Act. The purpose of the acquisition is devevlopment and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for Sector-15 Jagadhiri, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The award in this case was announced on 27.4.2004 and the instant petition has been filed on 9.9.2008. The principal grounds of challenge are that enquiry contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act, has been dispensed with by invoking urgency provision which is wholly illegal. The other CWP No. 16652 of 2008 -2- ground of challege is that notification under Section 6 was required to be issued after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whereas declaration under Section 6 was made before publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the affidavit, filed by Harish C. Jain, State Officer, HUDA (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3), a categorical stand has been taken that edifice of the entire petition rests on a Public Interest Litigation filed vide C.W.P. No. 7540 of 2000. The aforesaid petition has been dismissed by the First Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.2.2009 (R-1). As similar stand has been taken in the written statement filed by respondent nos. 1 & 4. According to the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court, the plea of those petitioners was found to be false when they claimed that no opportunity of hearing was granted. However, it was clarified that the dismissal of public interest litigation was not to adversely affect the writ petition filed by the individual land owners like the one in hand. Therefore, we proceed to consider the controversy on merit. In the affidavit of Mr. Harish C. Jain, reliance has also been placed on the dismissal of C.W.P. Nos. 12022 of 2002 and 8901 of 2001. It has been asserted that both the petitions were dimissed on 16.8.2004. Even the Special Leave Petitions were dimissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It is further pertinent to mention that another petition namely C.W.P. No. 17935 of 2008 was also dismissed by this Bench on 27.1.2010 on the ground of delay and laches. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this petition lacks merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. There may be some merit in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to breach of procedure for acquisition of the CWP No. 16652 of 2008 -3- land in question. But the petition has been filed four years after the announcement of the award. It is well settled that no petition could be filed after announcement of the award and taking of possession because acquired land vests in the State free from all encumberances. In that regard, a reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tamilnadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627. Moreover, the acquisition under challenge has been upheld by this Court in C.W.P. No. 8901 of 2001 and 12022 of 2002 which have been dismissed on 16.8.2004. Even S.L.Ps. against that order have been dismissed. The third party's rights have already in existence and this right cannot be disturbed by issuance of any direction at this belated stage. There is no plausible explanation furnished by the petitioner justifying such a huge delay. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismissed the same. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 18.02.2010 (AJAY TEWARI) w.ansari JUDGE