IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15744 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 30, 2010 Raj Mohan …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 17.9.2004 (P-6), issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), declaration issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(2)(c) the Act, dated 27.10.2004 (P-7) and award dated 9.3.2006 (P-9), passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition CWP No. 15744 of 2008 proceedings in question has already been passed on 9.3.2006 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 3.9.2008. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. It is conceded position on record that the award in the present case has already been announced on 9.3.2006 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 3.9.2008. 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. 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, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 30, 2010 JUDGE 2 CWP No. 15744 of 2008 Pkapoor 3