CWP No.3619 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3619 of 2009 Date of decision 6 .4.2010 Manohar Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Pritam Saini,Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Hy. Ms. Shallie Taneja, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent no.3 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 17.2.2004 and 14.2.2005 published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (P.1 and P.2). A prayer has also been made for quashing award dated 14.2.2007 pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector- respondent no.2 and all subsequent proceedings in pursuance of the award. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 2346 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.2.2007 because the award had already been announced on 14.2.2007. The present petition as well as the earlier petition have been filed after the announcement of the award. In para 2 of the written statement, the stand taken by the respondent-State is that on 14.2.2007 award was announced and possession of the land belonging to the petitioner was handed over to the beneficiary CWP No.3619 of 2009 2 department i.e. HUDA on the same day. It is admitted position that there was no stay order in favour of the petitioner and the land free from all encumbrances vested in the State on 14.2.2007. Even the objections filed by the petitioner were beyond the period of 30 days as has been pointed out by the respondents in para 3 of the written statement. It is well settled that no writ petition is maintainable after the announcement of the award as has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court 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. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 6.4.2010 Judge okg