IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9807 of 1990 Date of Decision: November 2, 2011 Smt. Manorma Devi …Petitioner Versus Haryana State and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NAR RAJIV NAR RAJIV NAR RAJIV NARAIN RAINA AIN RAINA AIN RAINA AIN RAINA Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, Acg. cg. cg. cg.C.J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent State of Haryana in pursuance to notifications dated 12.3.1973 and 10.3.1976, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) respectively, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and civil station areas in the Urban Estate to be set up in the area of village Lohar Bhiwani, Hadbast No. 22, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. 2. The petitioner purchased 500 Square Yards of land in Khasra No. 172/24-25min in the revenue estate of village Bhiwani CWP No. 9807 of 1990 2 Lohar, vide registered sale deed No. 1730 dated 10.10.1972. On 16.1.1975, even mutation No. 6528 was also entered in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. The petitioner has alleged that without complying with the provisions of the Act religiously the respondents have acquired the land in question, inasmuch as, the notifications dated 12.3.1973 and 10.3.1976 issued under Sections 4 and 6 which have remained confined to the files of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the same were never published in the locality. Neither objections under Section 5A of the Act were called nor notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were issued to the petitioner. The respondents instead rushed to announce the award on 14.6.1976. On 23.7.1990, the instant petition was filed challenging the notifications. 3. In the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 3 it has been asserted that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 12.3.1973. At that point of time, Shri Bhanwar Singh and others were the owner of the land in dispute. However, the petitioner got the mutation in her favour after publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. On 14.6.1976, the award was announced and the possession was handed over to the Urban Estates Department. An entry to that effect has also been made in the Rapat Roznamcha. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that there is no ground made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings subject matter of instant petition. Award in the present case had already been announced on 14.6.1976 long before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 23.7.1990. It CWP No. 9807 of 1990 3 is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of award because possession of land was taken and the land is deemed to be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In such a situation it is not possible to invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Reliance in that regard may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. Star Wire (India) Ltd. Star Wire (India) Ltd. Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. v. v. v. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC , (1996) 11 SCC , (1996) 11 SCC , (1996) 11 SCC 698; 698; 698; 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar Municipal Council Ahmednagar Municipal Council Ahmednagar Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. v. v. v. Shah Hyder Beig Shah Hyder Beig Shah Hyder Beig Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 , (2000) 2 , (2000) 2 , (2000) 2 SCC 48; SCC 48; SCC 48; SCC 48; C. Padma C. Padma C. Padma C. Padma v. v. v. v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, , , , (1997) 2 SCC 627; (1997) 2 SCC 627; (1997) 2 SCC 627; (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaik M/s Swaik M/s Swaik M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. a Properties Pvt. Ltd. a Properties Pvt. Ltd. a Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. v. v. v. State of State of State of State of Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 , JT 2008 (2) SC 280 , JT 2008 (2) SC 280 , JT 2008 (2) SC 280. There is thus, no ground to interfere. 5. In view of above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 2, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor