WritPetitionICUii^ 3671 of 2007 Petltioners 1. 2. 4. Siat. SushUa Devi Jaiu, W/o Rajkuiaar Jaui, aged about 53 yeara, R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalplir, District Bastar (CG) Siat. Bharti Jam, W/o Saiitosh Kuinar Jain, aged about 40 years, R/o Maia Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Dflip Kuiaar Lunkedr, S/o Pannalal Luukedr, aged about 35 years, R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Pradeep Kum.ar Luakedr, S/o Paanatal Lunkedr, aged about 38 years, R/o Bijapur, Tahsil & District Dante\vada (CG) Versus Respondents 1. State of ClTli.attisgarh, fhrough fhe Secretai;-, Departoient of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Maatralaya, Raipur, C.G. CoUector, Jagdalpur (CG) Sub Divisioual Officer (Revenue)-cuin-Laad Acquisition Officer, Jagdalpur, Distdct Bastar (CQ) Chhattisgarh Grih. Nirmaa Mandal, through its Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grili Nirraan Mandal, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastai- (CG) Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grib. Ninaaa Mandal, Division Jagdalpur, Distnct Bastar (CG) (Writ Petition under Article 226 offhe Constitution of India) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnBi.oti-i J.) Sbri Shashaak Thakur, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri Aiurito Das, Panel Lasyyer for fh.e respondents No. 1 fo 3. Shri Varun Shanna, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 4. 2. 3. 4. 0, (Passed on this 11th day ofAugust, 2009) 1. The petitioners have filed tlus petition agam.st the notifications dated 26.7.2005 (Aiuiexure P/l) and 16.11.2005 (Amiexure P/2), issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of fhe Laiid Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'fhe Act, 1894') for acquirmg laad Ai 4. -2- ^7 of viUage Hatakchora, Patwari Halka No. 60, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, Distri.et - Bastar. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents/State submits that subsequent to the notifications, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) aad Laad Acquisition Oflicer, Jagdalpur has reconunended for passing of the award on 21.11.2006. Accordingly, on 24.11.2006 the CoUector, Bastar has passed the award and possession of ttte laad was taken by the State Govenuiient. The petitioners have filed fhis petition on 23.6.2007. Thus, the petitioners slept over their right after passiug of fhe award also. Leamed counsel appeariiig for the petitioners subiaits that ia response to fhe notice under Section 9 of fhe Act, 1894, detailed objection (Annexure P/5) was subinitted by the petitioners but no opportunily of hearuig was giveu to fhe petitioners/land owners. Be fhat as it inay, fhe law on the issue asto whether a wri.t petition is inamtainable after passiag of fhe laad acquisition award, is weU settled. The petitioners slept over their right for about two years after notification under Section 4 of fhe Act, 1894 was issued. A nbtification under Section 4 of fhe Act, 1894 was issued on 26.7.2005 (Annexure. P/l) aad fhe notificafcion uiider Section 6 was issued 011 16.11.2005 (Annexiu-e P/2). The petitioaers submitted fheir objections on 12,6.2006 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the award was passed ou 24.11.2006 by fhe Collector. The petitioners did nothiag duriag fhe acquisition proceedtags aad even after passi&g of the award. The petitioners failed to chaUenge the award for about six months. '7-V ^-sSSS^SSi^Ks^S^^S ^^-e^,,,. -;fs'\^it£S^ ~^ T. ^ This Court ia Writ Petition (C) No. 6039 of 2008 (Saurabh Daga Vs. State of Clihattisgarh & otbers, order passed on dated 2.2.2009) ia para 6 held as under: "6. It is well setfled principle of law that a writ petitiou. questioniag of ftie award is not mauitamable, as after takuig over the possession of fhe land ttie sam.e vests absolutely in the Govenunent free froin all encunibrances. Even under Section 48 of fhe Act, 1894, fhe State aufhority also camiot wifhdraw from acquisition after possessiou has been taken over. 6. 7. Thakur Hon'ble Suprenie Court ia State of Rajasthaa & otheirs ws. D. R. Laxmi & Others1, held as under:- "9. ......When fhe award was passed and possession was takeu, fhe Court should not have exercised its power to quash fhe award which is a laaterial factor to be taken into consideration before exercisiug the power under Article 226. The fact fhat no fhird party rights were created in the case, is hardly a groiiud for interference." No exceptional or exta-aordiaary groiuids exist or raised to iavoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Coastitution of India, to take a departure froni the weU setfled principles of law. The petition is accordiagly, disinissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4 JT 1996 (9) SC 327 K