CWP No.16995 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16995 of 2008 Decided on : 27.01.2010 Sant Ram ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. The instant petition is directed against acquisition proceedings which culminated in passing of an award dated 21.07.2003 (Annexure P-3). The petition has been filed in the year 2008 after more than 4 years of the announcement of the award. The basic ground taken is that the land of some of the owners has been released after passing of the award on 23.11.2004 (Annexure P-6). That cannot constitute the basis for us to direct respondents to release the land of the petitioner because it would contravene the provision of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1892 which bars release of land after taking of possession. The writ petition is also highly belated. Even otherwise no such petition is maintainable. In CWP No.16995 of 2008 -2- that regard reliance 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. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE January 27, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE