IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8082 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 14, 2008 Ved Parkash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of directions to the respondents to exclude the land belonging to the petitioner from acquisition, who is a member of the Shanti Niketan Co-operative House Building Society. On 29.8.2005, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) [Annexure P-4], was issued by the respondent State for acquisition of 265.69 acres of land for development of residential and commercial area in Sector Nos. 3, 5 and 6 at Hansi. It has been claimed that the factum of acquisition was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, therefore, he could not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also admitted position C.W.P. No. 8082 of 2008 that declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued and award in respect of the present acquisition has already been announced. The instant petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the land in question has been acquired for the same purpose i.e. for development of the area as residential and commercial, for which the land was purchased by the Shanti Niketan Co-operative House Building Society of which the petitioner is stated to be a member. Some of the members of the aforementioned Society have also constructed their houses. However, the award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed before filing of the instant petition. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land was taken and it is deemed to vest in the State Government. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. There is thus, no ground to interfere. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 14, 2008 JUDGE C.W.P. No. 8082 of 2008 Pkapoor