In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 19929 of 2006 Date of decision:February 5, 2008 Ramesh Chand and another ---Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana. for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr.A.K.Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** M.M.KUMAR. J. Prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing impugned notification dated 29.1.2003 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act')and declaration dated 28.1.2004 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act. A further prayer for directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners has also been made. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that it is not in dispute that the award has been passed on 27.1.2006 and the present writ petition has been filed on 17.11.2006. It is appropriate to observe that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig and others A.I.R. 2000 S.C.671 has held that in any event, after the award was passed, no C.W.P. No. 19929 of 2006 -2- writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or any proceedings thereunder. This view was also taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. (1997) 2 SCC 627. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to explain as to why the impugned notification and declaration were not challenged at the proper time. Keeping in view the factual position that the writ petition was filed after the passing of the award and also the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE February 5, 2008 paramjit