Civil Writ Petition No.4066 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4066 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.01.2011 Sureshwati @ Suresh Kumari ....petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG Present: Mr.Rajinder Chokkar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Mr.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr.Sajjan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 *** This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notification issued on 6.10.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') purposing to acquire 10 acres 5 kanal and 17 marlas of land for public purpose i.e.for establishment of new vegetable market. Further challenge is to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 10.07.2007. Admittedly, in this case, Award was passed on 19.09.2008. The petitioner has made a challenge to the above said notification on the ground that after acquiring the land for a specific purpose, it was used by the respondents for another public purpose namely construction of godowns. Prayer has been made by the petitioner that the acquisition be cancelled and the land be rebutted back to her. It is apparent from the record that this writ petition came up for hearing for the first time on 9th Civil Writ Petition No.4066 of 2010 2 March, 2010 and the petition was not stayed. It is also not disputed before us that during the pendency of this appeal the land has been used for construction of godowns. The Award was pronounced on 19-09-2008 and the petitioner had also received compensation for her land. This writ petition has been filed after passing of the Award and cannot be allowed. Furthermore, once the petitioner has received the compensation for the acquired land, as such this writ petition is not maintainable. Objection of the petitioner that the acquisition be quashed because the land after acquisition has been used for a purpose other than the one which was acquired it is also liable to be rejected in view of the ratio of the judgment Union of India versus Jaswant Rai 1996 AIR 1352 and Municipal Corp. Of Great Bombay versus Industrial Development and Investment Co.(P) Ltd. 1997 AIR (SC) 482. In view of the facts mentioned above, this appeal is dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 18.01.2011 neenu