IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8782 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 18, 2008 Satish Singla and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent State. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondent HUDA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of four petitions2 because common question of law and facts are involved therein. In these petitions challenge is made for quashing notification dated C.W.P. No. 8782 of 2007 21.6.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 22.2.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act as also the award dated 4.5.2007, whereby the Government has acquired land for public purpose, namely, for Sector dividing road between Sector 24 and 25 Rohtak. It is conceded position that all these petitions have been filed after announcement of award by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Hisar, which was passed on 4.5.2007. The principal ground of challenge is that prior permission of the Government before announcing the award is necessary, which according to the petitioners has not been obtained in the present acquisition. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that there is no merit in these petitions which are liable to be dismissed. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is without any substance because such an irregularity would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings nor the award. In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Ongole v. Narra Venkateswarlu, (1996) 7 SCC 150. Moreover, it is undisputed and admitted position that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these petitions after announcement of award by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land 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 2 C.W.P. No. 8782 of 2007 Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. There is thus, no ground to interfere. 3. In view of above, these petitions fails and the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 18, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3 2 1. Satish Singla and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 8782 of 2007). 2. Saroj Gupta v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 8783 of 2007). 3. Ram Phal and others v State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 9389 of 2007). 4. Saroj Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 19519 of 2008).