Civil Writ Petition No. 13588 of 2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision : 30.10.2008 Saran Deep Singh Ahuja Petitioner. VERSUS State of Punjab and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr. A.S.Syan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rupinder S.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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. The instant petition is directed against notification dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration dated 2.02.2001 (Annexure P-10) made under Section 6 of the Act, by respondent No.3. The petitioner had purchased a plot for Civil Writ Petition No. 13588 of 2007. 2 construction of booth on right hand side of Sohana Landra Road in 1993 in Khasra No. 81//22/2 at village Sohana vide registered Sale Deed and Mutation No. 12525 was sanctioned in his favour (Jamabandi Annexure P-1). It is undisputed that the petitioner had raised construction in the year 2001 as is averred by him in para No. 3 of the writ petition. The respondent -State issued policy of regularizing construction raised in the periphery of Chandigarh which includes the area in dispute in respect of the construction raised from April, 1998 onwards. In the meanwhile, Award dated 17.5.2001 was announced and possession was taken. Later on the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 6.12.2001 for regularising his construction with respondent No.3 (Annexure P-4). Before any action could be taken, the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited after the announcement of Award. Construction, if any, has admittedly been raised in the year 2001 much after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act (Annexure P-8). In any case, it is well settled that once the Award is announced and possession of the land has been taken, then the land cannot be released from acquisition because the land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the possession of the land has never been taken does not require serious consideration because once the Award is announced then the Rapat Roznamcha whereby the possession is taken is sufficient to conclude that the land Civil Writ Petition No. 13588 of 2007. 3 vests in the State Government. The aforementioned proposition has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar Vs. State of Punjab and others, (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 212.In that case the possession by the land owner continued despite the fact that by an entry made in Rapat Rojnamcha after the award, possession was taken. A similar argument was raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court,which was rejected and possession was held to be illegal in the eyes of law. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE 30.10.2008 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE