THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11208 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 8, 2008 Smt. Ram Piari and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notifications dated 30.6.2005 and 5.7.2006 (P-2 & P-3), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) whereby the Government has sought to acquire land for public purpose, namely, for the development of Sector 39 C.W.P. No. 11208 of 2008 (Public-Semi Public) in the revenue estate of village Rasoi, Badmalik and Pritam Puri, Tehsil and District Sonipat. 2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been categorically pointed out that award in the acquisition proceedings in question was announced on 27.6.2008 followed by supplementary award dated 26.9.2008 (R-6 and R-7), whereas the writ petition has been filed after passing of award dated 27.6.2008, which was filed on 2.7.2008. 3. For two consecutive dates of hearing, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, having heard learned State counsel at a considerable length we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. Award in the present case has already been announced on 27.6.2008 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 2.7.2008. 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 be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 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. It is also admitted position that no objections 2 C.W.P. No. 11208 of 2008 under Section 5-A of the Act were ever filed by the petitioners as is evident from para 6 of the petition. Therefore, defence sought to be raised by the petitioners that the impugned acquisition is liable to be set aside because declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made after statutory period of one year would not be available to them. There is thus, no ground to interfere. 4. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3