CWP No.5358 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 5358 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 19, 2010 Tej Pal Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Sandeep Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The challenge in this petition has been made to the notifications dated 29.1.2003 and 28.1.2004, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The respondent State of Haryana has acquired the land for a public purpose, namely, for setting up Industrial Complex to be planned as “Special Economic Zone”. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 6179 of 2006. Even that petition was filed three months after the passing of the award. That petition was disposed of on 20.11.2007 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority for seeking exemption in terms of the policy. It is an admitted position that award in the acquisition proceedings in question was passed on 27.1.2006 much before filing of the petition, which was filed on 21.4.2006. CWP No.5358 of 2010 2 Having heard learned counsel, we find that no ground is made out to accept the contention raised by the petitioner and to quash the acquisition proceedings . It is conceded position on record that the award in the present case has already been announced before filing of the 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 vest 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. 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, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 19, 2010 JUDGE okg