CWP No.12088 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.12088 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.08.2009 Smt. Nirmal ....petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired by a notification dated 14.12.2007, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act). The petitioner filed her objections thereto under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. A copy of the aforesaid objections, is available on the record of this case as Annexure P-9. Having not accepted the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondents issued a notification on 11.7.2008 under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. A collective perusal of the aforesaid notifications reveal, that the land under reference was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of constructing a railway over bridge at Level Crossing No.58B on Delhi – Bathinda railway line and 1B on Rohtak – Gohana – Panipat Crossing Circular Road, Rohtak. CWP No.12088 of 2009 2 Consequent upon the issuance of the aforesaid notifications, the award was announced on 6.1.2009. It is apparent from a communication dated 13.7.2009, placed on the record of this case as Annexure P-14, that compensation for the acquired land, has since been disbursed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Accordingly, the petitioner through the aforesaid communication dated 13.7.2009 was directed to clear the site within 24 hours, failing which the needful would be done through a JCB machine. Obviously, challenge to the acquisition proceedings after the announcement of the award and receipt of compensation, is clearly unsustainable, but then, that is not the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the respondents are demanding possession of the land in excess of the land sought to be acquired under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, dated 11.7.2008. In order to ascertain the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have perused the notification issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, dated 11.7.2008. The same reveals that the petitioner’s land (sought to be acquired) measures approximately 96 square yards. As against the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the notice placed on the record of this case issued under Section 9 of the 1894 Act (Annexure P-11) vehemently contends, that the respondents are demanding 70.18 square yards of land from the petitioner. Even if the assertion made at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted as correct, inasmuch as, 70.18 square yards of the petitioner’s land was sought to be acquired, it is clear that the land possession whereof was taken, is less than the land depicted in the notification dated 11.7.2008, CWP No.12088 of 2009 3 issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, inasmuch as, it is not a matter of dispute that the land of the petitioner described therein is mentioned at page 690 of the Haryana Government Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2008, wherein the area of land of the petitioner sought to be acquired is mentioned as approximately 96 square yards. Besides the contention noticed hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the demolition of the petitioner’s house is a matter of serious concern, and that, some time should be afforded to the petitioner to make alternative arrangements, and as such, the petitioner be provided a period of one month, and that, for the said period of one month construction on the acquired land should not be demolished. It is not possible for us to accept the instant plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After the announcement of the award, and after the receipt of compensation, the petitioner has no business to make any such prayer. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( S.D. Anand ) Judge 11.08.2009 sk.