IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11751 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 23, 2008 Ghan Shyam and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 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. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 6.10.2006 (P-9) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and consequential acquisition proceedings leading to announcement of Award No. 9, dated 30.6.2008. C.W.P. No. 11751 of 2008 2. It appears that the land belonging to the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest could not be acquired in the earlier acquisition proceedings but possession of the same was taken in the year 1971. The aforementioned factual position is patent from the perusal of letter dated 1.10.1997 (P-5) sent under registered post in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. According to the aforementioned letter they were apprised that the land was acquired by the Industries Department in the year 1970 and its possession remained with the PWD (B&R) Department from 1971 to 1991. It was in the year 1991 that the possession of this land was handed over to the HSIDC-respondent No. 3 for construction of sheds, which were constructed in the year 1982-83. The claim made by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was not conceded on the ground that the same was raised after 25 years. The admitted position is that the possession of the land has remained either with the State Government or the agency of the State Government and it was only on 6.10.2006 that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 28.5.2007, photo copy of which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. The acquisition proceedings culminated in announcement of award on 30.6.2008 (R-1). 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we repel the prayer for quashing acquisition proceedings because the instant petition has been filed after announcement of award. There is a catena of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court laying down the principle that no petition would be competent after announcement of award against the acquisition proceedings. In that regard reliance 2 C.W.P. No. 11751 of 2008 may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the 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. All the same the petitioners would be entitled to compensation at the market value prevalent at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in accordance with the award subject to further remedies of reference etc. The petitioners would also be entitled to compensation for the user of the land from the date of possession to the date of notification issued under Section 4 i.e. 6.10.2006. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to disburse the compensation to the petitioners from the date of possession to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners shall be given the rate prevalent at the relevant time for Batai of the land. The same shall be calculated within a period of two months and be paid to the petitioners as award does not talk anything about that part of compensation. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) December 23, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3