CWP No. 20941 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20941 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Jasbir Singh and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and another ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioners' land measuring 62 Kanal 11 Marlas, which was acquired way back in the year 1993-94, be restored to them. It is apparent from the record that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was issued on 11.11.1993, to acquire land measuring 629.55 Acres including 134 Kanal 10 Marlas of land owned by the petitioners/predecessors-in-interest. The land was sought to be acquired to use it for an industrial purpose. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.04.1994 to CWP No. 20941 of 2010 2 acquiring only part of the land owned by the petitioners measuring 59 Kanal 10 Marlas. Thereafter, another notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 09.11.1994, which also includes 75 Kanals land of the petitioners. Out of total land of the petitioners, it is prayed that 62 Kanal 11 Marlas of land be released in their favour. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, we feel that it is not possible to interfere in this case. It is not in dispute, rather it is admitted before us that an Award was passed on 07.06.1996. The petitioners had received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. They filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, which was accepted on 24.05.2006. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in this Court, which was also accepted and the amount was further enhanced, which has already been received by the petitioners. The petitioners and the State also went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeals filed by both the parties were dismissed in the year 2007. Thereafter, on getting some information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, this writ petition has been filed for release of the land. We feel that it is misuse of process of law. The petitioners, after accepting compensation which was also enhanced at two stages, have no right whatsoever to lay challenge to the acquisition. The acquisition proceedings have been challenged on a ground that the land, release of which has been sought, had wrongly been acquired for the industrial sector, whereas this land falls in residential sector as per the Master Plan. Be that as it may, there is no proof on the record that in the year 1994, when land was acquired, there was a strict demarcation so far as separate sectors are concerned, showing residential and industrial use of the land. CWP No. 20941 of 2010 3 The petitioners have also tried to lay challenge to this acquisition on a ground that subsequently some part of it, was sold to a private party by the PSIEC. As per law, once an Award has been passed, land vests in the State and it can use the same as it likes. The land was transferred to a private party in the year 2002. Even at that time, no attempt was made by the petitioners to lay challenge to the same. The writ petition having been filed after passing of an Award is not maintainable in view of ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698, M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Further more, having accepted the compensation for the land under acquisition, it is not open to the petitioners to lay challenge to the acquisition proceedings. It was so held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Darshan Lal vs. State of Haryana, CWP No. 7186 of 2010 decided on 13.10.2010. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners, to get relief, placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vyalikaval Housebuilding Coop. Society vs. Chandrappa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 304. We have seen the facts of that case, which we feel were altogether different. In that case, it was found as a matter of fact, that the CWP No. 20941 of 2010 4 housing society, for which land was acquired, was a fraud. Further more, that writ petition was filed to lay challenge to the acquisition proceedings therein immediately after the pronouncement of the Award, whereas in this case, action has been started at a belated stage. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 25, 2010 pj