9^ HW3M GQURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR Writ ADpeal No 329 of %)10 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. Mahanadt Edueation Society, Through its Secretary, Shri Shailendra Jain, Near Naighsr Chouk, Chottepara, Ral^Mir ~ 492 001 Kanger Valley Academy, through its Administrath/e OfRcer, Gpp(®itePd. Ravi Shankar Shukla Gymnasiyam DoomarTalab, Raipur Versus 1. 2. 3. State of CNiaWsgarh, through the Distrfct Coitector, OffKse of C^)l(eGtorate, Ratpur, Chhattisgarh The Sub Divisionat Offflcer and Land Acqujsitton Officer, District Raipur, Raipur, Chhaltlsgarh Pandit Ravl Shankar Shul^a Univerejty, throvgh its Vtee Chancellor, Doomar Talab, Ralpur. Chhattisgarh Present: Shri Ankit Singhat, coynsel forthe appeltants. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondentsNo.1 and2. Divlsion Bench: H<m*bte Shri Dhlrendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT C20-9-2010) The fotlowing judgment of the Court wis delh/ered by Dtiirendra Mishra, J. 1. The appel!ants chaUenged the l^ality and validity of the award dated 1<t May, 2007 pass^l by the Land Acquisttion Officer on vartous grounds and the same has been dismlssed by leamed Singte Judge by the impugned order with an observation that award was passed on 1-5-2007 end possession of the land was taken by the respondent authorities The '^•^ iIIm -;^. •^^^" l&^^; ^ petitJQners have slept over their right and they moved the ob|eetions under Section 5A of the Land Aequisition Act, 1894 after prescribed period @f Ijmltationof30 days. 2. Leamed oounsel for Wie appellants submftted that objecttons under Section 5A were filed wlthin the prescribed period of IJmitatioR of 30 days from the date of notifjcation whteh was Issued under ^ction 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Aet and publjshed in offioial gazette of the State on ^)-1"2006 whereas objections were fited on 2nd March, 2008. The award has been passed without decjding the objections of the appetlants and on tltis ground alone, the award deservesto beset aside. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned orEter. 4 It is not jn dispute that the writ petition was fited 'm IVIarch, ^009 and by that time possession of the acquired land was taken t^ ttre respondent authoritjes. 5 In view of the settled law in thte regard etabomtely dealt wfth by tearned Singte Judge that the writ petition questioning passfrig Qf the award !s not maintainable as after taking over the possesston of the land the same vests absoUrtely in the Government free from all encumbrances, we are of the opinion that no ground js available to t^ a^ellants to ehattenge the impugned order. 6. The appeal is accordingly dlsmissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve