IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 19206 of 2008. Date of Decision : 26.11.2008. Rajbir Singh Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. --- 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. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notifications dated 14.8.2003 and 10.8.2004 (Annexures P-1 and P-8) issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for brevity, 'the Act')whereby the Government has sought to acquire land for public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as Residential and Commercial, Sector 9, Jhajjar under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in the area of village Jhajjar, Hadbast No. 100 and village Kamalgarh, Hadbast No. 102, Tehsil and District Jhajjar. It is an admitted position that award in the C.W.P.No. 19206 of 2008. -2- acquisition proceedings in question has already been passed on 27.7.2006 before filing of the instant petition, which has been filed on 5.11.2008. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner 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 has already been announced on 27.7.2006 before filing of the instant petition, which was filed on 5.11.2008. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after passing of the 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 Supreme Court rendered in the case of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana , (1996) 11 SCC 698; MunicipalCouncil Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1977) 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. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE 26.11.2008 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE