IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: May 28, 2010 1. CWP No. 19199 of 2009 Ram Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents 2. CWP No. 19201 of 2009 Shaija Vats …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents 3. CWP No. 19202 of 2009 Bhag Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents 4. CWP No. 19203 of 2009 Ram Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP Nos. 191999, 19201, 19202 & 19203 of 2009 M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 19199, 19201, 19202 and 19203 of 2009, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging notification dated 30.11.2006, issued under Section Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 28.11.2007, made under Section 6 of the Act (P-3 and P-5 respectively). The Government has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land for residential area for Sectors 27, 28 and 30, Pinjore. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on 26.11.2009 before filing of these petitions, which were filed on 11.12.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that no ground made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioners and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of these petitions. Award in the present case has already been announced on 26.11.2009 before filing of these 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 be vested 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 Nos. 191999, 19201, 19202 & 19203 of 2009 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 petitions fail and the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 28, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3