IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: April 5, 2010 1. CWP No. 20355 of 2009 Kehar Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents 2. CWP No. 958 of 2010 Mahender Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents 3. CWP No. 2494 of 2010 Pataso Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: For the petitioners: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, Mrs. Shallie Taneja, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No. 20355 of 2009 and CWP Nos. 958 & 2494 of 2010 M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned three petitions because the challenge in these petitions has been made to the same notifications dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The respondent State of Haryana has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for residential Sector 36, Rohtak, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question was passed on 9.12.2009 before filing of these petitions, which were filed on 21.12.2009, 15.1.2010 and 10.2.2010 respectively. Having heard learned counsel for the parties 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 these petitions. It is conceded position on record that the award in the present case has already been announced on 9.12.2009 before filing of the petitions. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land, free from all encumbrances 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 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. 2 CWP No. 20355 of 2009 and CWP Nos. 958 & 2494 of 2010 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. In view of above, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 5, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3