IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11578 of 2010 Date of decision: 5.7.2010 Darshan Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Ms.Seema Pasricha, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a following prayer:- “In the premises, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.2 to denotify the residential area of 3 Kanals falling in Khasra No.12/24, as shown red in the site plan annexed as Annexure P-2 (South to North side marked A to B), situated at village Dodwa, Tehsil and Distt. Karnal, which was acquired vide award dated 31.12.2009 and further directing the respondent No.2 to not to take the possession of the said area as shown red in the site plan in the interest of justice.” It is not in dispute that to acquire a vast track of land including the land of the petitioner, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) was issued on 30.1.2007. After getting objections from the petitioner, area whereupon construction was Civil Writ Petition No.11578 of 2010 raised by him, covering 1 kanal 12 marla, was left out from the acquisition. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 2.1.2008. Award was pronounced on 31.12.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show us as to why the petitioner has failed to lay challenge to the proceedings at an appropriate stage. Constructed house of the petitioner has been left out from the acquisition, the petitioner has not shown any right to get rest of the area released from operation of the acquisition by the government. Otherwise also their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a writ petition cannot be entertained after passing of an award in land acquisition matters. Reliance in that regard may be placed on the judgments 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 facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 05.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2