IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13208 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 8, 2008 M/s V.K.M. Kattha Industries (Pvt.) Limited …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner, which is a Private Limited Company, has challenged notification dated 21.12.2005 (P-9), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 29.12.2006 (P-10), issued under Section 6 of the Act. It has been alleged that on the land which belongs to the petitioner there is a running industrial unit, which has been leased out and that the industrial unit comprised in Rect. No. 75, Khasra No. 25, Rect. No. 80, Khasra No. 5/1 and 6/2 (23 Kanals 14 Marlas). The petitioner purchased the industrial unit vide sale deed dated 10.5.1994. C.W.P. No. 13208 of 2007 2. The case of the petitioner is that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner had got sanctioned building plants on 18.3.1994 (P-2). The petitioner has further claimed that it has applied for loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation on 23.5.1994 and the loan was repaid on 8.5.2003. It has obtained Certificate of Registration from the Sales Tax Department and has been a consumer of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam. The Director of the petitioner- company Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Gupta has claimed that on account of his illness, he started living at Delhi and leased out the running industrial unit to M/s Anand Agro Products on 5.5.2003. In order to show that the industrial unit is a running unit, the petitioner has placed on record photographs Annexures P-7 and P-8. 3. After issuance of notification dated 21.12.2005 (P-9) under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioner did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was subsequently made on 29.12.2006 (P-10). Even the award was announced on 15.7.2007 (R-1). The instant petition has been filed on 21.8.2007 subsequently to the passing of the award. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. The respondents have taken a categorical stand that the industrial unit belonging to the petitioner is not in working condition. In para 2 of the reply on merit it has been asserted that the acquired land of the petitioner is wear and tear old structure and not a running industry/plant exist in Rect. and Killa No. 75//25, which is subject matter of acquisition. 5. The aforementioned assertion made by the respondents is also fortified by the photographs attached by the petitioner as 2 C.W.P. No. 13208 of 2007 Annexures P-7 and P-8. The assertion made by the respondents in para 2 of the written statement has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any replication, which has to be accepted as correct. 6. It is an admitted position that no objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed either by the petitioner or its lessee, who was also an interested person within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. That would show acquiescence of the petitioner to the acquisition proceedings. Moreover, the writ petition has been filed after announcement of the award, which was passed on 15.7.2007 and the writ petition has been filed on 21.8.2007. Accordingly, the land free from all encumbrances has vested in the State. It is well settled that no writ petition is maintainable after announcement of the award, especially when the petitioner has also failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. For the aforementioned proposition we place reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case 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. 7. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) 3 C.W.P. No. 13208 of 2007 July 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4